Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Survey of Recent Developments in Criminal Antitrust Law
There have been numerous developments in U.S. criminal antitrust law over the last half-decade ' in legislation, judicial opinions, and the publicly stated enforcement policy of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). While none have been watershed events individually, in the aggregate they fundamentally impact representation of companies or individuals under investigation for antitrust violations. This article outlines the cumulative effect of these developments and indicates how representation of companies under antitrust investigation has changed over this period.
Legislative Developments
The most significant legislative change in criminal antitrust law during this period was the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, which increased the maximum criminal antitrust fine for corporations to $100 million, increased the maximum fine for individuals to $1 million, and increased the maximum term of imprisonment to 10 years. The increase for corporate fines to $100 million is not ground-breaking, as the DOJ has already obtained numerous fines in plea agreements substantially exceeding $100 million, utilizing the alternative 'twice gain/twice loss' provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 3571(d). The increase in the statutory maximum will allow the DOJ to push more aggressively for fines up to the current $100 million maximum without any need to demonstrate the amount of gain or loss from an antitrust violation. The increase in an individual sentence from three to 10 years places incarceration for an antitrust violation in the same range as for traditional major frauds.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.