Senior DOJ Official Reinforces Role of Leniency, Compliance Programs to Deter Bid Rigging and Anticompetitive Procurement Conduct
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.21.20
Richard Powers, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement, spoke at the ABA’s International Cartel Workshop on February 19, 2020, discussing the strong commitment the Division has to its leniency program as a core tool for effectively combatting cartel conduct. Powers stressed the complementary nature of leniency and partnerships such as the PCSF in creating a holistic approach to detecting, deterring, and prosecuting bid rigging and other criminal antitrust violations. He singled out small- and medium-sized government contractors as the focus of the PCSF’s deterrent effect, stating “[t]he reality is that small and medium-sized businesses that are tempted to collude on government contracts or subcontracts are more likely to be deterred by wide-spread awareness of the illegality of bid rigging and active enforcement, which is why the Justice Department established the PCSF.”
Powers also addressed the role of effective corporate compliance programs, calling them “the first line of defense in preventing these crimes.” He explained that while corporate compliance programs are now taken into account at the charging stage and a factor that weighs in favor of Deferred Prosecution Agreement, companies should not view the credit given for corporate compliance programs as a substitute for leniency, which he said “will continue to be the ultimate credit for an effective compliance program that detects antitrust crimes and allows prompt self-reporting.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate


