Extract

Laurence T. Sorkin1 Introduction Many jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, devote considerable enforcement resources to detecting and prosecuting cartels. At the governmental level, the response to cartels has become increasingly global. Antitrust enforcement agencies throughout the world are cooperating in their efforts to detect and punish cartel behavior, and at the governmental level, the war against cartels has been characterized by increased cooperation, coordination of resources, and convergence of best practices.2 Companies that find themselves the subjects or targets of multi-jurisdictional cartel investigations also tend to respond globally to the risks posed by such investigations.3 Companies will often seek to make simultaneous amnesty applications in multiple jurisdictions, or, if amnesty is not available, will seek to negotiate plea agreements or other dispositions in all of the affected jurisdictions. Counsel representing these companies will typically coordinate their efforts in all of the relevant jurisdictions, and although plea agreements or other dispositions may have to be negotiated on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, counsel dealing with multiple investigations at the governmental level will typically adopt a global strategy for trying to resolve their clients’ potential exposures. This process of trying to resolve potential exposures for cartel violations at the governmental level should be contrasted to what typically happens with respect to the resolution of private antitrust claims arising out of the same conduct. In the United States, where there is a well-developed tradition of private enforcement, and where the treble damages remedy is seen as a proper additional...