110 likes | 248 Views
Navigating the Roadblocks on the Leniency Highway Multijurisdictional Implications. Julian Joshua Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP College of Europe Global Competition Law Centre Brussels, 15 March 2005. Multijurisdictional issues. Transatlantic (international) Coordination
E N D
Navigating the Roadblocks on the Leniency Highway Multijurisdictional Implications Julian Joshua Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP College of Europe Global Competition Law Centre Brussels, 15 March 2005
Multijurisdictional issues • Transatlantic (international) Coordination • Impact of US discovery on EC Leniency • Getting (and losing!) immunity
Transatlantic Coordination (1) • Globalisation = global cartels = global exposure • Criminal / administrative / civil exposure • Leniency as an enforcement tool • 18 jurisdictions have a leniency policy
Transatlantic Coordination (2) EU European Commission (administrative procedure) US DOJ criminal enforcement Civil courts (federal – state) Treble damages – class actions Waivers Coordination of dawn raids “Pick up the phone” cooperation No secrecy for the “also rans” ALSO National Courts Civil & Criminal (e.g UK) Discovery orders
Transatlantic Coordination (3) • Basic Common Characteristics… BUT • Different Enforcement Procedures • Different Dynamic of Leniency programme • Different incentives
Impact of US discovery on EC leniency (1)US discovery • Fed R Civ P Rule 26: • “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action…” • Not confined to material that is “admissible” as evidence at trial: includes information that “appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence” • Wide judicial discretion (Methionine v Vitamins)
Impact of US discovery on EC leniency (2)Paperless leniency • Applications to DOJ tailored to minimise civil discovery • US lawyers advocate “paperless leniency” in EC • Widespread use of oral procedure by Commission • EC-US convergence? “Proffer” v “evidence” • Nasty surprises in store: “transcript” sent with SO • “Admissions” discoverable in US at critical phase
Impact of US discovery on EC leniency (3)Shifting the Goalposts • US lawyers urge reform • New notice on “Access to file”: Point 12 • Unsigned minutes are internal document, therefore not evidence, not disclosable and SO not discoverable • Implications: • Uncertainty for applicants • Due process / rights of defence
Getting (and losing!) immunity (1) • Similar conditions under both programmes: • Make available all evidence / report with “candor and completeness” • Obligation of full and continuing cooperation • Ending of involvement / prompt and effective action • Not a coercer ( US: leader or instigator) • Procedural aspects: staying on track
Getting and losing immunity (2) Stolt-Nielsen v. United States (ED, Pa, 14 January 2005): • Can DoJ revoke immunity unilaterally? • Did Stolt-Nielsen breach the agreement?
Practical Lessons • Appoint international Coordinating Counsel • Implement a global strategy • Be aware of the different enforcement schemes • Watch out for discovery issues • Establish global procedures to protect and maximize attorney-client privilege