15 U.S.C. § 7a–1: Limitation on recovery

Summary

Limits how much money a person can get from a company or cooperating people who took part in a current antitrust leniency deal. The court will not let a claimant recover more from that company and its cooperating individuals than the part of the claimant’s actual damages that came from the company’s sales or services tied to the violation. To get that limit, the court must find the company or individual gave satisfactory help after looking at the claimant’s papers. Satisfactory help means: giving a full account of all facts that might matter, turning over all relevant documents they control, and either being available to answer questions and testify truthfully (for cooperating people) or using best efforts to get those people to do so (for a leniency company). The court will weigh how timely the help was. If a stay or protective order had barred cooperation, once it ends they must promptly provide the previously blocked information. This does not change existing rules about recovering costs, attorney fees, or interest.

Title 15, §7a–1

Commerce and Trade, Source: USLM XML via OLRC

(a)In general

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)Requirements

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)Timeliness

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)Cooperation after expiration of stay or protective order

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)Continuation

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