Download
1 / 6
60 likes | 95 Views
This article delves into the complexities of atypical cartel cases, discussing examples and special considerations that warrant separate analysis. It explores the challenges faced by lawyers in defining and resolving such cases, weighing the costs and benefits of leniency and immunity. The text emphasizes the importance of clarity, predictability, and policy implications when deciding whether leniency is the optimal solution. It provides insights on legal defenses, statute of limitations, customers' claims, employee consequences, and maintaining shareholder value amid legal challenges. Key questions guide the decision-making process, urging a thorough understanding of the facts and legal implications before opting for leniency.
E N D
ICN Cartel Working Group When to seek leniency in “atypical cartel” cases? Marc Hansen 21 January 2014
Why do atypical cartels require separate analysis? • What are examples of atypical cartel case? • Information exchange cases • Price signaling cases • Non-secret cartels • “Hub and Spoke” cases • Ongoing effects of “old and cold” conduct • What are the features of atypical cartel matters that warrant special considerations? • The conduct is less clear cut than “smoke filled room” cartels • The entire picture is not clear to each participant in the conduct • Customers know about the conduct
What are the special considerations? • These cases come to the lawyer as a “problem” • It is up to the lawyer to define the problem • But above all find a solution • The solution can be to decide that this is not an enforcement risk • No violation of law as pro-competitive? • Not “per se” -- Efficiency defenses (information exchanges) • Other defenses? (new entry?) • Statute of limitations will also play a role • Above all, such cases have less clear fact patterns than the classic “smoke filled room” cartel cases • Not all violations of law must be reported
Leniency is not the solution to all problems • Immunity and leniency comes at a cost • A long and expensive process is very likely • Scope of case may be different from ex officio investigation? • Likelihood of customers asserting damages claims • Consequences for employees (criminal investigation even if nothing?) • Admitting to conduct being illegal creates a serious image problem for management and board of directors • Shareholder value affected • In essence, leniency is only attractive if it gives certainty • Upsides must be clear and permanent • Avoiding fines is not enough if damages claims are a certainty • Hammond’s Rule (for the last time) – Predictability!
In a marginal case, is leniency the solution? • The key questions that give the answer: • Do you have access to all the facts required to define an offence • Can you see all the facts (hub and spoke), or are they hidden to some? • Is the legal qualification clear? • What makes a a cartel different – Secrecy of conduct • When is an information exchange a cartel? (per se / by object) • Hub and spoke seen from spokes (yes?) or from hub (no?) • Are there pro-competitive explanations (a new entry story?) • Must you admit to an offence that you cannot be sure is an offence? • Or just the facts (perhaps the elements of the offence, which if not complemented by other elements are insufficient?) • Are you better off fighting? • The answer may depend on the jurisdiction?
What are the policy implications? • Incentivize leniency • Encourage applications • Accept that in marginal cases, some will opt for 2nd in • Allow incomplete stories to be told, and don’t require applicants to “fill in” the story where the facts are unknown • If no case, keep it confidential, forever; But reserve the “slot” • Do not incentivize embellishments • Dangerous where there is an incentive to cement a leniency story • When in doubt, don’t pursue as a cartel • If a plausible defense, deal with it and don’t take a shortcut?
