Amendments
2004—Pub.
L. 108–237 substituted
“$100,000,000” for “$10,000,000”,
“$1,000,000” for “$350,000”, and “10”
for “three”.
1990—Pub.
L. 101–588 substituted “$10,000,000”
for “one million dollars” and “$350,000”
for “one hundred thousand dollars”.
1975—Pub.
L. 94–145 struck out from first
sentence two provisos granting
anti-trust exemption to State fair trade
laws.
1974—Pub.
L. 93–528 substituted “a felony,
and, on conviction thereof, shall be
punished by fine not exceeding one
million dollars if a corporation, or, if
any other person, one hundred thousand
dollars, or by imprisonment not
exceeding three years” for “a
misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof,
shall be punished by fine not exceeding
fifty thousand dollars, or by
imprisonment not exceeding one year”.
1955—Act
July 7, 1955, substituted “fifty
thousand dollars” for “five thousand
dollars”.
1937—Act
Aug. 17, 1937, inserted two
provisos.
Effective Date of 2001 Amendment
Pub. L. 107–72, § 4,
Nov. 20, 2001,
115 Stat. 650, provided that:
“This Act [enacting and amending
provisions set out as notes under
this section] and the amendments
made by this Act shall take effect
on
September 30, 2001.”
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Pub. L. 94–145, § 4,
Dec. 12, 1974,
89 Stat. 801, provided that:
“The amendments made by sections 2
and 3 of this Act [amending this
section and
section 45 of this title] shall
take effect upon the expiration of
the ninety-day period which begins
on the date of enactment of this Act
[
Dec. 12,
1975].”
Short Title of 2015 Amendment
Pub. L. 114–44, § 1,
Aug. 6, 2015,
129 Stat. 472, provided that:
“This Act [amending provisions set
out as a note under this section]
may be cited as the ‘Need-Based
Educational Aid Act of 2015’.”
Short Title of 2009 Amendment
Pub. L. 111–30, § 1,
June 19, 2009,
123 Stat. 1775, provided that:
“This Act [enacting and amending
provisions set out as notes under
this section] may be cited as the
‘Antitrust Criminal Penalty
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004
Extension Act’.”
Short Title of 2008 Amendment
Pub. L. 110–327, § 1,
Sept. 30, 2008,
122 Stat. 3566, provided that:
“This Act [amending provisions set
out as a note under this section]
may be cited as the ‘Need-Based
Educational Aid Act of 2008’.”
Short Title of 2007 Amendment
Pub. L. 110–6, § 1,
Feb. 26, 2007,
121 Stat. 61, provided that:
“This Act [amending provisions set
out as a note under this section]
may be cited as the ‘Antitrust
Modernization Commission Extension
Act of 2007’.”
Short Title of 2004 Amendment
Pub. L. 108–237, title II, § 201,
June 22, 2004,
118 Stat. 665, provided that:
“This title [amending this section
and sections
2,
3, and
16 of
this title and enacting provisions
set out as notes under this section
and
section
16 of this title] may be cited
as the ‘Antitrust Criminal Penalty
Enhancement and Reform Act of
2004’.”
Short Title of 2002 Amendment
Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title IV,
§ 14101, Nov.
2, 2002,
116 Stat. 1921, provided that:
“This title [amending sections
3,
12,
27, and
44
of this title,
section
225 of Title 7, Agriculture,
section 1413 of Title 30,
Mineral Lands and Mining, and
section 2135 of Title 42, The
Public Health and Welfare, repealing
sections
30
and
31 of
this title, enacting provisions set
out as a note under
section 3 of this title,
amending provisions set out as notes
under this section and
section 8 of this title, and
repealing provisions set out as
notes under
section 15 of this title and
section 41309 of Title 49,
Transportation] may be cited as the
‘Antitrust Technical Corrections Act
of 2002’.”
Short Title of 2001 Amendment
Pub. L. 107–72, § 1,
Nov. 20, 2001,
115 Stat. 648, provided that:
“This Act [enacting and amending
provisions set out as notes under
this section] may be cited as the
‘Need-Based Educational Aid Act of
2001’.”
Short Title of 1997 Amendments
Pub. L. 105–43, § 1,
Sept. 17, 1997,
111 Stat. 1140, provided that:
“This Act [enacting and amending
provisions set out as notes below]
may be cited as the ‘Need-Based
Educational Aid Antitrust Protection
Act of 1997’.”
Pub. L. 105–26, § 1,
July 3, 1997,
111 Stat. 241, provided that:
“This Act [amending sections
37 and
37a
of this title and enacting
provisions set out as notes under
section 37 of this title] may be
cited as the ‘Charitable Donation
Antitrust Immunity Act of 1997’.”
Short Title of 1995 Amendment
Pub. L. 104–63, § 1,
Dec. 8, 1995,
109 Stat. 687, provided that:
“This Act [enacting sections
37 and
37a
of this title and provisions set out
as a note under
section 37 of this title] may be
cited as the ‘Charitable Gift
Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of
1995’.”
Short Title of 1984 Amendment
Pub. L. 98–544, § 1,
Oct. 24, 1984,
98 Stat. 2750, provided:
“That this Act [enacting sections
34 to
36 of this title and provisions
set out as a note under
section 34 of this title] may be
cited as the ‘Local Government
Antitrust Act of 1984’.”
Short Title of 1976 Amendment
Pub. L. 94–435, § 1,
Sept. 30, 1976,
90 Stat. 1383, provided:
“That this Act [enacting sections
15c to
15h,
18a, and
66
of this title, amending sections
12,
15b,
16,
26, and
1311 to
1314 of this title,
section
1505 of Title 18, Crimes and
Criminal Procedure, and
section 1407 of Title 28,
Judiciary and Judicial Procedure,
and enacting provisions set out as
notes under sections
8,
15c,
18a, and
1311 of this title] may be cited
as the ‘Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976’.”
Short Title of 1975 Amendment
Pub. L. 94–145, § 1,
Dec. 12, 1975,
89 Stat. 801, provided:
“That this Act [amending this
section and
section 45 of this title and
enacting provisions set out as a
note under this section] may be
cited as the ‘Consumer Goods Pricing
Act of 1975’.”
Short Title of 1974 Amendment
Pub. L. 93–528, § 1,
Dec. 21, 1974,
88 Stat. 1706, provided:
“That this Act [amending this
section and section
2,
3,
16,
28,
and
29 of
this title,
section
401 of Title 47,
Telecommunications, and sections 43,
44, and 45 of former Title 49,
Transportation, and enacting
provisions set out as notes under
this section and
section 29
of this title] may be cited as
the ‘Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act’.”
Short Title
Pub. L. 94–435, title III, § 305(a),
Sept. 30, 1976,
90 Stat. 1397, added immediately
following the enacting clause of act
July 2, 1890,
the following:
“That this Act [this section and
sections
2 to
7 of this title] may be cited as
the ‘Sherman Act’.”
Antitrust Enforcement Enhancements and
Cooperation Incentives
Pub. L. 108–237, title II,
§§ 211–214,
June 22, 2004,
118 Stat. 666, 667, as amended by
Pub. L. 111–30, § 2,
June 19, 2009,
123 Stat. 1775;
Pub. L. 111–190, §§ 1–4,
June 9, 2010,
124 Stat. 1275, 1276, provided that:
“SEC. 211.
SUNSET.
“(a)In
General.—
Except as provided in
subsection (b), the
provisions of sections
211 through 214 of this
subtitle [this note]
shall cease to have
effect 16 years after
the date of enactment of
this Act [June
22, 2004].
“(b)Exceptions.—With
respect to—
“(1)
a person who
receives a marker on
or before the date
on which the
provisions of
section 211 through
214 of this subtitle
shall cease to have
effect that later
results in the
execution of an
antitrust leniency
agreement; or
“(2)
an applicant who has
entered into an
antitrust leniency
agreement on or
before the date on
which the provisions
of sections 211
through 214 of this
subtitle shall cease
to have effect,
the provisions of
sections 211 through 214
of this subtitle shall
continue in effect.
“SEC. 212.
DEFINITIONS.
“In
this subtitle [subtitle A
(§§ 211–215) of title II of
Pub. L. 108–237, amending
this section and sections
2 and
3 of this title and enacting
this note]:
“(1)Antitrust
division.—
The term ‘Antitrust
Division’ means the
United States Department
of Justice Antitrust
Division.
“(2)Antitrust
leniency agreement.—
The term ‘antitrust
leniency agreement,’ or
‘agreement,’ means a
leniency letter
agreement, whether
conditional or final,
between a person and the
Antitrust Division
pursuant to the
Corporate Leniency
Policy of the Antitrust
Division in effect on
the date of execution of
the agreement.
“(3)Antitrust
leniency applicant.—
The term ‘antitrust
leniency applicant,’ or
‘applicant,’ means, with
respect to an antitrust
leniency agreement, the
person that has entered
into the agreement.
“(4)Claimant.—
The term ‘claimant’
means a person or class,
that has brought, or on
whose behalf has been
brought, a civil action
alleging a violation of
section 1 or 3 of the
Sherman Act [
15
U.S.C. 1, 3] or any
similar State law,
except that the term
does not include a State
or a subdivision of a
State with respect to a
civil action brought to
recover damages
sustained by the State
or subdivision.
“(5)Cooperating
individual.—
The term ‘cooperating
individual’ means, with
respect to an antitrust
leniency agreement, a
current or former
director, officer, or
employee of the
antitrust leniency
applicant who is covered
by the agreement.
“(6)Marker.—
The term ‘marker’ means
an assurance given by
the Antitrust Division
to a candidate for
corporate leniency that
no other company will be
considered for leniency,
for some finite period
of time, while the
candidate is given an
opportunity to perfect
its leniency
application.
“(7)Person.—
The term ‘person’ has
the meaning given it in
subsection (a) of the
first section of the
Clayton Act [
15
U.S.C. 12(a)].
“SEC. 213.
LIMITATION ON RECOVERY.
“(a)In
General.—
Subject to subsection
(d), in any civil action
alleging a violation of
section 1 or 3 of the
Sherman Act [
15
U.S.C. 1, 3], or
alleging a violation of
any similar State law,
based on conduct covered
by a currently effective
antitrust leniency
agreement, the amount of
damages recovered by or
on behalf of a claimant
from an antitrust
leniency applicant who
satisfies the
requirements of
subsection (b), together
with the amounts so
recovered from
cooperating individuals
who satisfy such
requirements, shall not
exceed that portion of
the actual damages
sustained by such
claimant which is
attributable to the
commerce done by the
applicant in the goods
or services affected by
the violation.
“(b)Requirements.—Subject
to subsection (c), an
antitrust leniency applicant
or cooperating individual
satisfies the requirements
of this subsection with
respect to a civil action
described in subsection (a)
if the court in which the
civil action is brought
determines, after
considering any appropriate
pleadings from the claimant,
that the applicant or
cooperating individual, as
the case may be, has
provided satisfactory
cooperation to the claimant
with respect to the civil
action, which cooperation
shall include—
“(1)
providing a full
account to the
claimant of all
facts known to the
applicant or
cooperating
individual, as the
case may be, that
are potentially
relevant to the
civil action;
“(2)
furnishing all
documents or other
items potentially
relevant to the
civil action that
are in the
possession, custody,
or control of the
applicant or
cooperating
individual, as the
case may be,
wherever they are
located; and
“(3)
(A)
in the case of a
cooperating
individual—
“(i)
making
himself or
herself
available
for such
interviews,
depositions,
or testimony
in
connection
with the
civil action
as the
claimant may
reasonably
require; and
“(ii)
responding
completely
and
truthfully,
without
making any
attempt
either
falsely to
protect or
falsely to
implicate
any person
or entity,
and without
intentionally
withholding
any
potentially
relevant
information,
to all
questions
asked by the
claimant in
interviews,
depositions,
trials, or
any other
court
proceedings
in
connection
with the
civil
action; or
“(B)
in the case of
an antitrust
leniency
applicant, using
its best efforts
to secure and
facilitate from
cooperating
individuals
covered by the
agreement the
cooperation
described in
clauses (i) and
(ii) and
subparagraph
(A).
“(c)Timeliness.—
The court shall
consider, in making the
determination concerning
satisfactory cooperation
described in subsection
(b), the timeliness of
the applicant’s or
cooperating individual’s
cooperation with the
claimant.
“(d)Cooperation
After Expiration of Stay or
Protective Order.—
If the Antitrust
Division does obtain a
stay or protective order
in a civil action based
on conduct covered by an
antitrust leniency
agreement, once the stay
or protective order, or
a portion thereof,
expires or is
terminated, the
antitrust leniency
applicant and
cooperating individuals
shall provide without
unreasonable delay any
cooperation described in
paragraphs (1) and (2)
of subsection (b) that
was prohibited by the
expired or terminated
stay or protective
order, or the expired or
terminated portion
thereof, in order for
the cooperation to be
deemed satisfactory
under such paragraphs.
“(e)Continuation.—
Nothing in this section
shall be construed to
modify, impair, or
supersede the provisions
of sections 4, 4A, and
4C of the Clayton Act [
15
U.S.C. 15, 15a, 15c]
relating to the recovery
of costs of suit,
including a reasonable
attorney’s fee, and
interest on damages, to
the extent that such
recovery is authorized
by such sections.
“SEC. 214.
RIGHTS, AUTHORITIES, AND
LIABILITIES NOT AFFECTED.
“Nothing in this subtitle
[subtitle A (§§ 211–215) of
title II of
Pub. L. 108–237, amending
this section and sections
2 and
3 of this title and enacting
this note] shall be construed
to—
“(1)
affect the rights of the
Antitrust Division to
seek a stay or
protective order in a
civil action based on
conduct covered by an
antitrust leniency
agreement to prevent the
cooperation described in
section 213(b) of this
subtitle from
impairing or impeding
the investigation or
prosecution by the
Antitrust Division of
conduct covered by the
agreement;
“(2)
create any right to
challenge any decision
by the Antitrust
Division with respect to
an antitrust leniency
agreement; or
Subsection (a) shall expire on
September 30,
2022.”
[
Pub.
L. 105–43, § 2(b),
Sept. 17, 1997,
111 Stat. 1140, provided that:
“The amendments made by subsection
(a) [amending section 568(a)–(d) of
Pub. L. 103–382, set out above]
shall take effect immediately before
September
30, 1997.”
]