DOJ Deputy Assistant AG Hammond Emphasizes Importance of Effective Antitrust Compliance Programs and Internal Investigations

25 February 2013 Dashboard Insights Blog

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott Hammond of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division recently spoke to a group from the State Bar of Michigan’s Antitrust, Franchising & Trade Regulation section. His presentation addressed the automotive parts antitrust investigation, which he described as an “active” ongoing investigation. Indeed, the auto parts investigation is the biggest criminal antitrust investigation in history. To date, twelve individuals and nine companies have plead guilty and $809 million in total fines have been assessed. Hammond attributed the DOJ’s successful investigation to several things including the coordination between global enforcement agencies on 4 continents; raising the stakes for antitrust crimes in the form of fines and increased prison sentences; increased prosecution of individuals; use of wire tapping authority; and, perhaps most important, incentivizing companies to conduct their own internal investigations to win the “race to leniency.”

Mr. Hammond described the Corporate Leniency and Amnesty Plus programs in detail and attributed the “race to leniency” as the factor that has “destabilized the cartels” and served as a deterrent to anti-competitive conduct. The DOJ Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency program covers the company and its individuals. The single most important factor to qualify for leniency is being the first to disclose. In addition, leniency also requires a demonstration of prompt and effective termination of the conduct; cooperation; a truly corporate act (as opposed to isolated individual conduct); restitution; and no coercion, i.e., not the leader or originator of the conduct. If a company qualifies for leniency: 1) no charges will be brought against the company or the individual; 2) there will be no fines or jail time; 3) the company will be eligible for reduced civil damages; and 4) a confidential policy protecting applicant’s identity and information will be put in place. Mr. Hammond also described the Amnesty Plus program. In this instance, the company has already lost the race for leniency with respect to Product A. The company agrees to cooperate on Product A, but also discloses wrongful conduct related to Product B. Here, the company can receive amnesty on Product B and potentially a reduced fine for Product A.

Throughout his presentation, Mr. Hammond repeatedly emphasized that the Corporate Leniency and Amnesty Plus programs should incentivize companies to implement and maintain effective compliance programs and conduct thorough internal investigations to ferret out wrongful conduct.Hammond said investigations conducted by outside counsel, in-house counsel, or corporate compliance officers have been critical to the DOJ’s ability to obtain information and enable companies to avail themselves of these leniency programs.Hammond also said that increased fines are intended to incentivize companies to create and implement effective compliance programs. He noted that in over 50% of the cartel investigations, as the DOJ investigated, it discovered additional, separate wrongdoing. Given these fact, all companies in this industry should establish antitrust compliance programs, train their employees, frequently update their antitrust policies, establish reporting mechanisms to identify potential wrongdoing, and conduct thorough internal investigations. As always, a company’s ability to identify wrongful conduct, make a disclosure to the government, respond to and remediate the problem, fully cooperate with any investigation, and take responsibility for any wrongful conduct, will be paramount to a company’s defense.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.