European Commission Introduces New Settlement Procedure for Cartel Cases
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.30.08
The European Commission today introduced a new settlement procedure for cartel cases, under which the parties that acknowledge their participation in a cartel may obtain a 10% reduction in fines. This procedure is intended to simplify the Commission’s administrative processes, freeing up resources so that it can pursue new cases. It may also reduce the number of appeals to the European Courts in cartel cases.
Parties do not automatically have a right to settlement under the new process, and the Commission will have full discretion to determine whether a case is suitable for settlement. Nor will the Commission negotiate the use of evidence or the appropriate sanction. The Commission will inform the parties of its case and the supporting evidence. Parties will then have to indicate whether they wish to pursue a settlement. In order to settle, parties will have to acknowledge the scope and duration of the cartel as well as the liability of the individual companies involved in a so-called ”settlement submission.” If the Commission chooses to accept the parties’ settlement submissions, it will do so under an abbreviated procedure resulting in a shorter than usual decision. Moreover, until a decision is taken, the Commission will retain the possibility to reject the proposed settlement and revert to its normal process.
In contrast with US practice of plea bargaining, the Commission sees settlement as a tool for achieving procedural savings rather than for evidence gathering. Its main evidence gathering tool in cartel cases will remain its leniency program under the 2006 Leniency Notice. Fine reductions under the new settlement process and the leniency program will be cumulative.
Although the Commission has yet to release full details of the new procedure, it appears to be closely based on its package of proposals launched on October 26, 2007. That package has been widely criticized by lawyers in private practice for failing to offer companies sufficient incentives to make settlement attractive. See e.g. http://www.crowell.com/documents/All-Settled_Where-Are-The-European-Commissions-Settlement-Proposals-Post-Consultation.pdf
The settlement procedure will enter into force on the day of its publication in the EU Official Journal.
For further information:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/cartels/legislation/settlements.html
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.16.25
Yesterday, less than an hour into the first day of confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Pam Bondi, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned Bondi on her commitment to defending the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) if she is confirmed. Bondi responded that she would “of course” defend the constitutionality of the FCA and that she understands the importance of whistleblowers, the FCA’s protections, and “the money it brings back to our country.” Senator Grassley’s questioning indicated he was focused on the FCA’s qui tam provisions, as it comes on the heels of U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, Inc., -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), a first-of-its-kind decision from Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions improperly appoint a relator “an officer of the United States” in violation of the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional. Senator Grassley appeared to be seeking assurances about Bondi’s willingness to ensure the Department of Justice continues to defend the FCA’s qui tam provisions and commit the resources necessary to do so.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.15.25
Congress Has Spoken: DoD Unilateral Definitizations are Appealable Government Claims
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.15.25
Speedbump or Roadblock?: Complaint Challenges New Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules
Client Alert | 5 min read | 01.15.25
State Antitrust Enforcement: A Continued Focus on Competition During the New Administration
