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

submitted 22 years ago by Pub. L. 108-237 to r/title-15-COMMERCE-AND-TRADE · 559 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This law caps how much money a company can be forced to pay after cooperating under an antitrust leniency deal. The cap applies only if the cooperator meets specific requirements a court checks. Cooperation must be full, complete, and timely.

(a) In general. If a civil antitrust lawsuit is based on conduct covered by a currently active leniency agreement, and the antitrust leniency applicant meets the requirements in (b), then the total damages a claimant can collect — from that applicant plus from any qualifying cooperating individuals combined — cannot exceed the actual damages caused by the applicant's own share of the affected business. This is subject to (d). (b) Requirements. Subject to (c), an applicant or cooperating individual meets these requirements only if the court hearing the case decides, after considering the claimant's arguments, that the applicant or individual gave "satisfactory cooperation." That cooperation must include: (1) giving the claimant a full account of all facts the applicant or individual knows that might be relevant to the case; (2) handing over all documents or other items that might be relevant, no matter where they're located; and (3) for a cooperating individual — making themselves available for interviews, depositions, or testimony the claimant reasonably needs, and answering completely and truthfully, without falsely protecting or falsely blaming anyone, and without deliberately withholding relevant information; for an antitrust leniency applicant — using its best efforts to get its covered cooperating individuals to provide that same kind of cooperation. (c) Timeliness. In deciding whether cooperation was "satisfactory" under (b), the court must consider how promptly the applicant or individual cooperated. (d) Cooperation after a stay or protective order ends. If the Antitrust Division gets a stay or protective order in a case based on leniency-covered conduct, then once that stay or order (or part of it) ends, the applicant and cooperating individuals must, without unreasonable delay, provide the cooperation described in (b)(1) and (b)(2) that the stay or order had blocked. Doing so counts as satisfying those paragraphs. (e) Continuation. Nothing in this section changes sections 15, 15a, and 15c of this title, which let a party recover the costs of the lawsuit — including a reasonable attorney's fee — and interest on damages, wherever those sections allow it.

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

(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).

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 sections 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.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 108–237, title II, § 213, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 666; Pub. L. 111–190, § 3, June 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 1275.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit

2004Enacted · Pub. L. 108-237 · 118 Stat. 666
2010Amended · Pub. L. 111-190 · 124 Stat. 1275

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 108-237 on 2004-06-22.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

no arguments yet — make the first case