PRIA, Government Policy, Made Personal

Summary

Limits how much money a person can recover in a civil lawsuit that says someone broke federal antitrust rules (section 1 or 3) or similar state law when the defendant is a company or person covered by a current antitrust leniency agreement. The total money a claimant can get from that leniency applicant and cooperating individuals cannot be more than the part of the claimant’s actual losses that was caused by the applicant’s own sales or services in the affected market. A court must decide whether the leniency applicant or cooperating person gave satisfactory help to the claimant. Satisfactory help means: telling all facts they know that might matter; turning over all relevant documents they control; and, for individuals, being available for interviews or testimony and answering fully and truthfully (or, for a leniency applicant, trying hard to get its cooperating people to do that). The court will look at how timely the help was. If a government stay or protective order blocked giving documents, the applicant must promptly provide those documents after the order ends. This rule does not change who can recover court costs, lawyer fees, or interest under sections 15, 15a, and 15c.

Title 15, §7a–1

Commerce and Trade, Source: USLM XML via OLRC

(a)Subject to subsection (d), in any civil action alleging a violation of section 1 or 3 of this title, or alleging a violation of any similar State law, based on conduct covered by a currently effective antitrust leniency agreement, the amount of damages recovered by or on behalf of a claimant from an antitrust leniency applicant who satisfies the requirements of subsection (b), together with the amounts so recovered from cooperating individuals who satisfy such requirements, shall not exceed that portion of the actual damages sustained by such claimant which is attributable to the commerce done by the applicant in the goods or services affected by the violation.

(b)Subject to subsection (c), an antitrust leniency applicant or cooperating individual satisfies the requirements of this subsection with respect to a civil action described in subsection (a) if the court in which the civil action is brought determines, after considering any appropriate pleadings from the claimant, that the applicant or cooperating individual, as the case may be, has provided satisfactory cooperation to the claimant with respect to the civil action, which cooperation shall include—

(1)providing a full account to the claimant of all facts known to the applicant or cooperating individual, as the case may be, that are potentially relevant to the civil action;

(2)furnishing all documents or other items potentially relevant to the civil action that are in the possession, custody, or control of the applicant or cooperating individual, as the case may be, wherever they are located; and

(3)(A)in the case of a cooperating individual—

(i)making himself or herself available for such interviews, depositions, or testimony in connection with the civil action as the claimant may reasonably require; and

(ii)responding completely and truthfully, without making any attempt either falsely to protect or falsely to implicate any person or entity, and without intentionally withholding any potentially relevant information, to all questions asked by the claimant in interviews, depositions, trials, or any other court proceedings in connection with the civil action; or

(B)in the case of an antitrust leniency applicant, using its best efforts to secure and facilitate from cooperating individuals covered by the agreement the cooperation described in clauses (i) and (ii) and subparagraph (A).

(c)The court shall consider, in making the determination concerning satisfactory cooperation described in subsection (b), the timeliness of the applicant’s or cooperating individual’s cooperation with the claimant.

(d)If the Antitrust Division does obtain a stay or protective order in a civil action based on conduct covered by an antitrust leniency agreement, once the stay or protective order, or a portion thereof, expires or is terminated, the antitrust leniency applicant and cooperating individuals shall provide without unreasonable delay any cooperation described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) that was prohibited by the expired or terminated stay or protective order, or the expired or terminated portion thereof, in order for the cooperation to be deemed satisfactory under such paragraphs.

(e)Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the provisions of section 15, 15a, and 15c of this title relating to the recovery of costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, and interest on damages, to the extent that such recovery is authorized by such sections.

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Codification Section was formerly set out in a note under section 1 of this title, prior to transfer to this section upon repeal of sunset provision.

Amendments

2010—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–190, § 3(a), amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “If the initial contact by the antitrust leniency applicant with the Antitrust Division regarding conduct covered by the antitrust leniency agreement occurs after a State, or subdivision of a State, has issued compulsory process in connection with an investigation of allegations of a violation of section 1 or 3 of this title or any similar State law based on conduct covered by the antitrust leniency agreement or after a civil action described in subsection (a) has been filed, then the court shall consider, in making the determination concerning satisfactory cooperation described in subsection (b), the timeliness of the applicant’s initial cooperation with the claimant.” Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 111–190, § 3(b), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (e).

§7a–1 Limitation on Recovery

Summary

Title 15, §7a–1

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Amendments

Citations & Metadata