- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
September 22, 2020New York Law Journal Recognizes Hollis Salzman as a Trailblazer
-
September 18, 2020Teresa Fariss Mcclain Recognized as Woman worth Watching by Profiles in Diversity Journal
-
September 17, 2020Robins Kaplan LLP Files New Lawsuit Against Delbarton School and the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey on behalf of Survivors of Child Sex Abuse
-
September 30, 2020From Contract to Courtroom: Lessons Learned in Contract Litigation and Trials
-
September 30, 2020Minnesota Justice Foundation 2020 Virtual Awards Celebration
-
October 1-2, 2020Minnesota CLE 2020 Midwest IP Institute
-
Summer 2020Following a Varied Legal Career, Judge Jonathan Kobes Begins on the Eighth Circuit
-
September 22, 2020Herbal Patent Protection
-
August 24, 2020Hot off the Presses: California Further Regulates Out-of-State Adjusters in the Wake of Record-Breaking Catastrophic Losses
When You Lose The Race To Corporate Leniency
While it remains to be seen whether the use of NPAs and DPAs is a growing trend or a unique arrangement for targets of antitrust investigations in the financial services industry, this article examines the background and historical use of these agreements and their re‐emergence in recent antitrust investigations.
March 15, 2013
Law360, New York (March 15, 2013, 12:51 PM ET) ‐‐ In recent years, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has successfully incentivized cartelists to come forward and provide cooperation in criminal antitrust investigations through its Corporate Leniency Program. To be eligible for leniency under the program, a corporation must be the first entity to provide the DOJ with valuable information regarding an alleged antitrust conspiracy. However, in the wake of recent criminal investigations in the financial services industry, alternative arrangements have emerged for dilatory cartelists who wish to cooperate with the DOJ but have missed the opportunity for corporate leniency.
All Content © 2003‐2013, Portfolio Media, Inc.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.