Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Antitrust Division's Corporate Lenience Program
Antitrust practitioners and companies worried about antitrust prosecution are weighing the significance of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2006), which held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could still prosecute a company after it had been accepted into the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program. Under the Program, adopted in 1993, a company engaged in antitrust violations that qualifies for leniency will not be prosecuted, provided that it confesses its wrongdoing, agrees to cooperate in an investigation of co-conspirators, and makes restitution to victims of its illegal conduct. The Program offers protection from both criminal prosecution and treble damages in subsequent civil antitrust suits.
But there's a catch. Amnesty is available only to the first company in a given cartel or conspiracy that cooperates with the Division. The second company in the door is not guaranteed anything, no matter how extensive its cooperation, and it may wind up with no leniency at all. This 'winner take all' policy creates a rush to the prosecutor's office to report illegal conduct.
Given the success and widespread acceptance of the Program, the recent decision by the Division to eject a cooperating company generated attention and controversy. Stolt-Nielsen was the first amnesty recipient to lose its status and face indictment. The Division claimed that Stolt-Nielsen's disclosures of an anticompetitive ocean-shipping cartel had been incomplete, and that during amnesty negotiations Stolt-Nielsen had misrepresented its own illegal conduct.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?