ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> Truth on the Market

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate & Securities Law

: Truth on the Market

CPI Symposium featuring Ginsburg and Wright on Antitrust Sanctions

ADVERTISEMENTS

Competition Policy International’s newest issue has been released.  The issue is focused on cartel sanctions and features a colloquium on a piece co-authored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg and me on Antitrust Sanctions, with comments from a fantastic lineup of antitrust economists and lawyers: Joseph Harrington (Johns Hopkins), Pieter Kalbfleisch (Netherlands Competition Authority), Mariana Tavares de Araujo (SDE, Brazil), and Donald Klawiter (Sheppard Mullin).  The comments are interesting and agree and disagree with a variety of features of the Ginsburg & Wright proposal for even further (but not completely) shifting the focus of antitrust sanctions from the corporation toward responsible individuals, and adding debarment to the cartel enforcement toolkit.

The entire issue can be downloaded here, and also features an excellent symposium on cartel sanctions.

Here is our abstract:

In this article, we first discuss traditional deterrence theory as applied to optimal criminal antitrust penalties. Then we evaluate both the U.S. and EU experience with ever-increasing corporate fines and the available empirical evidence on the deterrent value of cartel sanctions. In the next part we turn to our claim that the conventional wisdom of ever-increasing corporate fines to solve the problem of under-deterrence is misguided. The determination of the optimal sanction for price-fixing should be guided by two principles: (1) the total sanction must be great enough, but no greater than necessary, to take the profit out of price-fixing; and (2) the individuals responsible for the price-fixing should be given a sufficient disincentive to discourage them from engaging in the activity. We propose altering the distribution of criminal sanctions for corporations and the individuals who fix prices on their behalf, and introducing sanctions for negligent officers and directors consistent with our two fundamental principles. Finally, we discuss the experience with debarment as a sanction in other contexts, and how it might operate in the context of U.S. antitrust enforcement.

Read the whole thing.


Filed under: antitrust, business, cartels, corporate crime, economics

Full post as published by Truth on the Market on November 09, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.002 secs (from cache 11/02/26 22:28:26)