Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
complianceThe U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has historically taken a tough stance against corporate compliance programs that arguably failed to prevent employees from committing criminal antitrust offenses, such as price fixing and bid rigging. For instance, the Division has never opted to forgo charges, file lesser charges, or impose a lower fine against a corporation on the basis that it had a generally effective compliance program. If an antitrust violation occurred at all, so the Division’s traditional position held, the corporation’s compliance program must have been ineffective, almost by definition. Such a rigid approach has been criticized as being “all stick and no carrot,” as well as being out of line with the rest of the DOJ.

In an apparent response to this criticism, the Division recently has signaled a willingness to add more “carrots” to its policy. Since 2015, the Division has imposed lower criminal fines on three separate occasions where the pleading companies “substantially” improved their compliance programs after the wrongfully conduct occurred. These cases involving post-violation compliance enhancements represent the only instances to date where the Division has provided compliance-related credit. Notably, during this time, the Division has hewed to its policy that it will not provide companies any credit—either at the charging or sentencing stages—for even exemplary compliance programs that existed before the wrongful conduct occurred.

There are strong signs, however, that the Division may soon revisit its longstanding position. For nearly a year, the Division has publicly stated that it is reevaluating whether, and if so how, to credit companies that have invested in robust pre-existing compliance programs. If adopted, such a striking policy shift could allow companies with generally effective compliance programs to substantially mitigate the penalties imposed on them during a cartel investigation.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.