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.”
]