15 U.S.C. § 16 — Judgments

submitted 112 years ago by ch. 323 to r/title-15-COMMERCE-AND-TRADE · 1,677 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

A government win in an antitrust case counts as strong evidence against that defendant later. Before the government settles a case, it must publish the deal and let the public comment. A court must then decide the settlement truly serves the public interest before approving it.

(a) Prima facie evidence; collateral estoppel — If the United States wins (or has already won) a civil or criminal antitrust case, finding that a defendant broke the antitrust laws, that judgment counts as strong ("prima facie") evidence against that same defendant in a later case brought by someone else — for anything the judgment would have settled between the original parties. Exception: this doesn't apply to consent judgments entered before any testimony was taken (settlements reached before trial really got going). This section doesn't limit collateral estoppel in general, except that a finding by the Federal Trade Commission under the antitrust laws or section 45 can't be given collateral-estoppel effect to support a private antitrust claim. (b) Consent judgments and competitive impact statements — Before the government's proposed consent judgment (settlement) in a civil antitrust case can take effect, the U.S. must file it with the court and publish it in the Federal Register at least 60 days ahead of time. Public comments on the proposal, and the government's responses, must also be filed with the court and published in the Federal Register within that 60-day window. The proposal and any materials that shaped it must be made public at the courthouse (and elsewhere, if the court directs). At the same time, the U.S. must also file, publish, and make available on request a "competitive impact statement" explaining: (1) what the case is about; (2) the practices that allegedly violated the antitrust laws; (3) what the proposed settlement does, including any unusual terms, the relief it provides, and its expected effect on competition; (4) what remedies private plaintiffs would still have if the settlement is approved; (5) how the proposal could be modified; and (6) what alternatives the government considered instead. (c) Publication of summaries in newspapers — Starting at least 60 days before the settlement takes effect, the U.S. must also publish, over 7 days across 2 weeks, in newspapers where the case was filed, in D.C., and anywhere else the court directs: a summary of the settlement's terms, a summary of the competitive impact statement, and a list of where the public can review the underlying documents. (d) Consideration of public comments — During that 60-day window (and any extra time the court grants), the U.S. must accept and consider written public comments on the settlement. The Attorney General sets up the process for this, and the 60-day period can only be shortened by court order, and only if extraordinary circumstances require it and shortening it wouldn't hurt the public interest. Afterward, the U.S. must file its written response to the comments with the court and publish it in the Federal Register — unless the court, for good cause, lets the U.S. use another public method instead, because Federal Register publication would cost more than it's worth. (e) Public interest determination — (1) Before approving any consent judgment, the court must find that entering it serves the public interest. To decide that, the court looks at the judgment's effect on competition — including whether it actually stops the alleged violations, how it will be enforced and modified, how long the relief lasts, what alternatives were considered, whether its terms are unclear, and anything else relevant — and at its impact on the relevant market, the public, and anyone claiming a specific injury, including any public benefit that a full trial might have produced instead. (2) This doesn't force the court to hold a hearing or let anyone formally intervene in the case. (f) Procedure for the public interest determination — In deciding whether the settlement serves the public interest, the court can: take testimony from government officials, experts, or other witnesses; appoint a special master or outside experts and consultants, and ask for input from any person, group, or government agency; let interested people or agencies fully or partly participate — as a friend of the court, as an intervenor under the civil procedure rules, by questioning witnesses or documents, or otherwise; review the public comments and objections filed under subsection (d) along with the government's responses; and take any other action in the public interest it sees fit. (g) Filing of communications with the court — Within 10 days after a proposed consent judgment is filed, each defendant must file with the court a list of every written or oral communication — including ones by the defendant's officers, directors, employees, agents, or others on the defendant's behalf — with any U.S. government officer or employee, about the proposal. The one exception is communications made solely by the defendant's counsel of record with the Attorney General or Justice Department staff. Before the consent judgment is entered, each defendant must certify to the court that it complied with this requirement and that its filing is complete and accurate to the best of its knowledge. (h) Inadmissibility as evidence — What happens during the court's subsections (e) and (f) review, and the competitive impact statement itself, cannot be used as evidence against a defendant in any other case brought by a different party, or by the United States under section 15a. It also cannot serve as prima facie evidence — meaning the consent judgment itself can't be used that way either — in those other cases. (i) Suspension of limitations — When the United States starts a civil or criminal antitrust case (except a case under section 15a), the countdown on the statute of limitations pauses — for every private or state claim based even partly on the same matter — while that government case is pending, and for one year afterward. But there's a hard outer limit: if this pause applies to a claim under section 15 or 15c, any lawsuit to enforce that claim is still permanently barred unless it's filed either during the pause or within four years after the claim first arose.

the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain

(a) Prima facie evidence; collateral estoppel

A final judgment or decree heretofore or hereafter rendered in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States under the antitrust laws to the effect that a defendant has violated said laws shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in any action or proceeding brought by any other party against such defendant under said laws as to all matters respecting which said judgment or decree would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto: Provided, That this section shall not apply to consent judgments or decrees entered before any testimony has been taken. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to impose any limitation on the application of collateral estoppel, except that, in any action or proceeding brought under the antitrust laws, collateral estoppel effect shall not be given to any finding made by the Federal Trade Commission under the antitrust laws or under section 45 of this title which could give rise to a claim for relief under the antitrust laws.

(b) Consent judgments and competitive impact statements; publication in Federal Register; availability of copies to the public

Any proposal for a consent judgment submitted by the United States for entry in any civil proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States under the antitrust laws shall be filed with the district court before which such proceeding is pending and published by the United States in the Federal Register at least 60 days prior to the effective date of such judgment. Any written comments relating to such proposal and any responses by the United States thereto, shall also be filed with such district court and published by the United States in the Federal Register within such sixty-day period. Copies of such proposal and any other materials and documents which the United States considered determinative in formulating such proposal, shall also be made available to the public at the district court and in such other districts as the court may subsequently direct. Simultaneously with the filing of such proposal, unless otherwise instructed by the court, the United States shall file with the district court, publish in the Federal Register, and thereafter furnish to any person upon request, a competitive impact statement which shall recite—

(1)

the nature and purpose of the proceeding;

(2)

a description of the practices or events giving rise to the alleged violation of the antitrust laws;

(3)

an explanation of the proposal for a consent judgment, including an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise to such proposal or any provision contained therein, relief to be obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on competition of such relief;

(4)

the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for the consent judgment is entered in such proceeding;

(5)

a description of the procedures available for modification of such proposal; and

(6)

a description and evaluation of alternatives to such proposal actually considered by the United States.

The United States shall also cause to be published, commencing at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the judgment described in subsection (b) of this section, for 7 days over a period of 2 weeks in newspapers of general circulation of the district in which the case has been filed, in the District of Columbia, and in such other districts as the court may direct—

(i)

a summary of the terms of the proposal for consent judgment,

(ii)

a summary of the competitive impact statement filed under subsection (b),

(iii)

and a list of the materials and documents under subsection (b) which the United States shall make available for purposes of meaningful public comment, and the place where such materials and documents are available for public inspection.

(d) Consideration of public comments by Attorney General and publication of response

During the 60-day period as specified in subsection (b) of this section, and such additional time as the United States may request and the court may grant, the United States shall receive and consider any written comments relating to the proposal for the consent judgment submitted under subsection (b). The Attorney General or his designee shall establish procedures to carry out the provisions of this subsection, but such 60-day time period shall not be shortened except by order of the district court upon a showing that (1) extraordinary circumstances require such shortening and (2) such shortening is not adverse to the public interest. At the close of the period during which such comments may be received, the United States shall file with the district court and cause to be published in the Federal Register a response to such comments. Upon application by the United States, the district court may, for good cause (based on a finding that the expense of publication in the Federal Register exceeds the public interest benefits to be gained from such publication), authorize an alternative method of public dissemination of the public comments received and the response to those comments.

(e) Public interest determination

(1)

Before entering any consent judgment proposed by the United States under this section, the court shall determine that the entry of such judgment is in the public interest. For the purpose of such determination, the court shall consider—

(A)

the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and

(B)

the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.

(2)

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.

(f) Procedure for public interest determination

In making its determination under subsection (e), the court may—

(1)

take testimony of Government officials or experts or such other expert witnesses, upon motion of any party or participant or upon its own motion, as the court may deem appropriate;

(2)

appoint a special master and such outside consultants or expert witnesses as the court may deem appropriate; and request and obtain the views, evaluations, or advice of any individual, group or agency of government with respect to any aspects of the proposed judgment or the effect of such judgment, in such manner as the court deems appropriate;

(3)

authorize full or limited participation in proceedings before the court by interested persons or agencies, including appearance amicus curiae, intervention as a party pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, examination of witnesses or documentary materials, or participation in any other manner and extent which serves the public interest as the court may deem appropriate;

(4)

review any comments including any objections filed with the United States under subsection (d) concerning the proposed judgment and the responses of the United States to such comments and objections; and

(5)

take such other action in the public interest as the court may deem appropriate.

(g) Filing of written or oral communications with the district court

Not later than 10 days following the date of the filing of any proposal for a consent judgment under subsection (b), each defendant shall file with the district court a description of any and all written or oral communications by or on behalf of such defendant, including any and all written or oral communications on behalf of such defendant by any officer, director, employee, or agent of such defendant, or other person, with any officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant to such proposal, except that any such communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone shall be excluded from the requirements of this subsection. Prior to the entry of any consent judgment pursuant to the antitrust laws, each defendant shall certify to the district court that the requirements of this subsection have been complied with and that such filing is a true and complete description of such communications known to the defendant or which the defendant reasonably should have known.

(h) Inadmissibility as evidence of proceedings before the district court and the competitive impact statement

Proceedings before the district court under subsections (e) and (f) of this section, and the competitive impact statement filed under subsection (b) of this section, shall not be admissible against any defendant in any action or proceeding brought by any other party against such defendant under the antitrust laws or by the United States under section 15a of this title nor constitute a basis for the introduction of the consent judgment as prima facie evidence against such defendant in any such action or proceeding.

(i) Suspension of limitations

Whenever any civil or criminal proceeding is instituted by the United States to prevent, restrain, or punish violations of any of the antitrust laws, but not including an action under section 15a of this title, the running of the statute of limitations in respect to every private or State right of action arising under said laws and based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in said proceeding shall be suspended during the pendency thereof and for one year thereafter: Provided, however, That whenever the running of the statute of limitations in respect of a cause of action arising under section 15 or 15c of this title is suspended hereunder, any action to enforce such cause of action shall be forever barred unless commenced either within the period of suspension or within four years after the cause of action accrued.

Source credit: (Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 5, 38 Stat. 731; July 7, 1955, ch. 283, § 2, 69 Stat. 283; Pub. L. 93–528, § 2, Dec. 21, 1974, 88 Stat. 1706; Pub. L. 94–435, title III, § 302(2), Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1396; Pub. L. 96–349, § 5(a), Sept. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 1157; Pub. L. 108–237, title II, § 221(b), June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 668.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

1914Enacted · Act of Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323 · 38 Stat. 731
1955Amended · Act of July 7, 1955, ch. 283 · 69 Stat. 283
1974Amended · Pub. L. 93-528 · 88 Stat. 1706
1976Amended · Pub. L. 94-435 · 90 Stat. 1396
1980Amended · Pub. L. 96-349 · 94 Stat. 1157
2004Amended · Pub. L. 108-237 · 118 Stat. 668

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by ch. 323 on 1914-10-15.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case