Federal Judge Affirms Enforceability of Judgment Sharing Provisions in Antitrust Cases

A recent district court order finds that JSAs can serve a legitimate purpose of controlling parties’ exposure and preventing coercive settlements.

Antitrust conspiracy claims pose significant monetary risks, including treble damages, attorney’s fees, and joint and several liability without a right to contribution. In practice, these risks incentivize defendants to settle such claims early regardless of their validity or an individual defendant’s relative culpability. In order to eliminate or soften the impact of these risks, defendants sometimes enter into judgment sharing agreements (JSAs). However, critics say JSAs are at odds with Congress’s intent to maximize deterrence for antitrust violations, and that they violate the antitrust laws in and of themselves.

Please see full Alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Latham & Watkins LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Latham & Watkins LLP

Latham & Watkins LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.