December 10, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter Delivers Opening Remarks at 2022 Spring Enforcers Summit

20 min read

I am thrilled to participate in the first-annual spring gathering of antitrust enforcers. It is a privilege to be among this incredibly esteemed, talented and dedicated group of speakers and attendees. Admittedly, I was excited – maybe too excited – to learn that people are calling this “Antitrust Day.” May today be the first of many. And maybe next year, this occasion will be reflected in the greeting card aisle.

I look forward to learning from each other so that we can be more effective advocates on behalf of the public at this critical moment in the history of antitrust enforcement. I am confident it will be an engaging program.

I would like to open by highlighting some changes we have made at the Antitrust division, and announcing some new ones. As I have discussed before, the Division has a preference for remedies over settlements. Over the last few months, the division has taken important steps to reject risky settlements and challenge illegal mergers in court. In fact, we have sued to block or obtained abandonments in four merger matters in as many months. Just last week, we rejected a settlement proposal from Cargotec and Konecranes, which abandoned their proposed $5 billion transaction in the face of opposition from the Antitrust Division and the UK’s CMA.

Bourgeoning scholarship demonstrates that flimsy settlements often fail. For example, at the Food and Agriculture listening session that we held last week with the FTC, we heard concerns from a milk producer about a 2017 dairy industry merger that failed to preserve competition. Stories like this reaffirm our policy view that the public cannot bear the risk of a divestiture that flops.

In order to protect the public, the division must be able to go to court to block a deal. We will bring tough cases — cases where charging is consistent with the facts and the law, and in criminal cases with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. We have six active civil cases, including the monopolization case against Google and merger challenges against American Airlines, Penguin-Random House, United Health Group, U.S. Sugar, and Verzatec. In the criminal program, we have 21 indicted cases against 42 individuals, including 9 CEOs and corporate presidents under indictment. We ended FY 2021 with 146 pending grand jury investigations, which is the most in 30 years. We will aggressively pursue enforcement of the criminal antitrust laws to protect consumers, workers and businesses harmed by unlawful collusion and monopolization.

We are more committed than ever to litigating when we believe a violation has taken place. I have designated two acting DAAGs to oversee our litigation docket: Carol Sipperly and Hetal Doshi. It’s the first time I’m aware of that the Antitrust Division has had not one but two litigation deputies—a reflection of our intense focus on trying cases. Both Carol and Hetal are longtime department prosecutors with a wealth of experience, including supporting Antitrust Division trials.  

Carol has first chaired and co-led over 30 jury trials. Her career with the Justice Department began as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she investigated and prosecuted cases involving organized crime as well as complex white-collar violations, including cases against John Gotti Jr. and Darryl Strawberry. She is also a veteran of the Division’s LIBOR cases. For the last two years, Carol has championed vigorous antitrust enforcement leading the Division’s criminal litigation program as Senior Litigation Counsel and (Acting) Co-Director of Criminal Litigation. In this role, she supervised and supported trial teams in U.S. v. Penn, U.S. v. Aiyer, and U.S. v. Lischewski.

Hetal is a highly accomplished trial attorney who has experience both in private practice and in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver. Hetal supervised civil and criminal trial teams and trained and mentored AUSAs. She served on the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and led investigations of global international banks for their conduct in causing the 2008 global financial crisis, resulting in historic, multi-billion-dollar penalties. She also established a cryptocurrency fraud investigations and prosecution practice. Hetal has supported Antitrust prosecution trial teams in Denver and through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force.

Of course, the division has also had talented litigation directors and veteran trial lawyers on staff whose insights and experience support our civil and criminal trial teams. Their expertise will be deployed to help train junior litigators, supervise trial teams, provide support for special matters like motions to compel or help litigate especially complex matters and unique issues. We are in the process of hiring additional trial lawyers from outside the department to grow our bench and complement our internal talent.

Our goal is simple: we must be prepared to try cases to a verdict when we think a violation has taken place. And that means that our capacity for litigation must grow with the demands of modern antitrust enforcement. In other words, the division must have the scale to litigate multiples of our current docket. To do so, we are institutionalizing shared resources to support trial teams, recognizing the complexity of modern litigation. At bottom, we will work toward a steady state where the division is not constrained by the costs of litigation. Accordingly, the President’s FY 2023 budget request for the division incorporates an increase of over $80 million. We intend to put the money to good use.

This is especially true because the investment in antitrust enforcement pays enormous dividends. In addition to the massive benefits to the economy from competition, the fines that result from our criminal enforcement more than surpass our annual expenditures. Over the most recent ten fiscal years, the Antitrust Division is responsible for depositing more than $8.7 billion in criminal antitrust fines and penalties to the Crime Victims Fund – 42% of the $20.8 billion deposited overall. The division is also responsible for nearly $2 billion in additional contributions to the general treasury fund over that time period.

I want to say clearly that we are committed to litigating cases using the whole legislative toolbox that Congress has given us to promote competition. One tool that I think we can use more is Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 helps prevent collusion before it can occur by imposing a bright-line rule against interlocking directorates.

For too long, our Section 8 enforcement has essentially been limited to our merger review process. We are ramping up efforts to identify violations across the broader economy, and we will not hesitate to bring Section 8 cases to break up interlocking directorates.

We are also acting in real time to intervene wherever needed to protect competition, including filing statements of interest in state and federal courts and before federal agencies.

On criminal enforcement, I am excited to announce that as of today, the division is making important updates to its leniency program. Leniency is one of the division’s most important enforcement tools for rooting out cartels because it incentivizes corporations involved in wrongdoing to do the right thing by self-reporting.

While these core incentives have not changed, the updates to the leniency policy will further promote accountability. First, under the revised leniency policy, to qualify for leniency, a company must promptly self-report after discovering its wrongful conduct. A company that discovers it committed a crime and then sits on its hands hoping it goes unnoticed does not deserve leniency.

Second, to qualify for leniency, a company must now undertake remedial measures to redress the harm it caused and improve its compliance program.  

Just as important as the changes to the policy is the division’s commitment to making that policy transparent, predictable, and accessible to the public. As of today, the division’s leniency policy lives in the antitrust chapter of the Justice Manual, which is easy to find on the DOJ website and is the definitive go-to source for internal policy and guidance across the department.

Today we are also issuing an updated version of the Frequently Asked Questions about our leniency policy. Front and center in our minds when updating that document was the need to simplify and demystify our practices. The FAQs are written in plain language. And we have added nearly 50 FAQs to ensure they address all the recurring questions we’ve received — and then some. This document will make it even easier for the public to learn about leniency and understand what benefits it provides and what the division requires in return.

When I say the public, I want to emphasize that we are focused on making our policies intelligible to all: outside counsel, in-house counsel, and businesspeople in all sectors of the economy and at all levels of sophistication. There are no unwritten rules to enforcement at the Antitrust Division. We make our enforcement decisions based on transparent and predictable criteria.

And we need to change the language of antitrust more broadly to make laws more accessible to the public that they protect. By facilitating equal access to justice and making our processes transparent, we guarantee just outcomes for all. When it comes to leniency, the easier we make it for the public to understand the program, the more applications we receive, and the stronger the program’s incentive structure is — which ultimately improves our enforcement capabilities.

As I said earlier, the division is considering all of the tools at our disposal. That’s true across the board, when it comes to both civil and criminal enforcement. We take our mandate to enforce the antitrust laws seriously — especially when it comes to making sure we are deterring, detecting, and where warranted prosecuting the most flagrant, pernicious offenses.

Robust antitrust enforcement is particularly critical right now. As we’ve seen time and time again, collusion thrives in consolidated industries. And when Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890, it made Section 2 a crime as it did with Section 1. Since the 1970s, Section 2 has been a felony, just like Section 1. In 2004, Congress increased Section 2’s criminal penalties in lockstep with the increased penalties for Section 1 crimes. So if the facts and the law, and a careful analysis of Department policies guiding our use of prosecutorial discretion, warrant a criminal Section 2 charge, the Division will not hesitate to enforce the law.

Another area where I am determined to improve is in the language of antitrust – we have launched an Access to Antitrust Justice Initiative, which we are calling AT2J, to change the language of antitrust law to make enforcement more accessible and responsive. Antitrust should be accessible to all citizens, consumers, workers, and small businesses – not just large corporations that can afford expensive counsel. This will impact the language in our public statements and investigations, the participants in our public fora. We are already seeing this play out in our review of the merger guidelines alongside our colleagues at the FTC. We are following a rigorous, inclusive process in reviewing the merger guidelines, providing transparency throughout, and seeking input from a wide array of stakeholders in merger policy, not just attorneys and economists, but also business owners, workers, farmers, and consumers who have been impacted by corporate consolidation. We submitted a public Request for Information posing several questions regarding merger analysis, and have already received over 275 comments, far outpacing the 51 comments received in the first round of the 2010 Guidelines review. Last week we partnered with the FTC to hold the first of four Listening Forums to hear directly from those affected by consolidation. And, of course, we are here today with our international and state counterparts to hear and learn from your experiences.

Indeed, this summit, which is being live streamed for free to enhance access and share our policies and direction with the public at large, is also a celebration of cooperation and collaboration as well as a reminder that partnerships among competition enforcers are transformative. At a case level, cooperation enables us to cover more ground at a deeper level. Exchanges between teams sharpen our analysis and refine our thinking, and can give us access to evidence and information to which we would not otherwise have access. At a macro level, our partnerships are a force multiplier. Individually, each of us has our own “superpower;” and is a force for good, but when we act together, we are the Avengers. And the world today, the global economy around us, needs powerful voices ensuring competitive markets and fair competition. When we work together, that is the competition enforcement community.

One of the challenges I have given to my team is to make collaboration among DOJ’s competition partners even better. On the international side, we are taking a close look at tools like second generation agreements in the international space and continue to work with our partners bilaterally, inside multilateral organizations, and in a variety of dialogues. We also are expanding our programs to provide technical assistance and litigation resources to partners in order to help them meet the competition challenges of the modern economy.

On the domestic front, we are focused on implementing the Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. We launched a new initiative to support antitrust enforcement throughout the U.S. government, including through new partnerships with the USDA and Federal Maritime Commission to provide litigation support for their statutory competition authorities. We also have greatly expanded partnerships in support of competition with numerous other agencies, including DOL, DOD, DOT and the CFPB. We are training interagency partners throughout the federal government on the antitrust laws. As federal infrastructure spending increases, we also are continuing our efforts to seek out and prosecute procurement collusion through the Procurement Collusion Strike Force.

My first step to getting all this done has been to make sure the people are in place to build and support our partnerships. For this, I have looked to a strong career staff with a few additions. I created the position of Policy Director to oversee the division’s policy development work in a cross-functional way, including overseeing its International, Competition Policy, and Appellate sections. Career attorney Dave Lawrence has ably stepped into the post. Patty Brink took on the role of senior counsel for International and Intergovernmental Affairs. Lynda Marshall continues on as our International Chief and Karina Lubell is now chief of our policy group. Both lead strong staff teams. And Sarah Allen has joined us as a counsel in the Front Office to focus on our collaboration with state attorneys general, which is vital to effective enforcement. I have asked all of them to do a deep dive on our resources and present a long-term plan for growing in our partnerships. We are working through projections of where we want to be not just tomorrow, but in three years and beyond.

These are exciting times for the antitrust and competition law enforcement community. Thank you for joining this summit and happy Antitrust Day. I look forward to today’s discussions.

More from: April 4, 2022

  • Six Men Charged for Roles in Scheme to Defraud Businesses of Luxury Goods and Services
    In Crime News
    Six men were charged in an indictment unsealed on Wednesday for their alleged participation in a nation-wide scheme to defraud dozens of businesses across the United States of luxury goods and services announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling of the District of Massachusetts.

    [Read More…]

  • More Achieved in 2020 to Improve Kidney Care Than in Decades
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    Since the Department of [Read More…]
  • Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with the EU Political and Security Committee
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help Achieve U.S. Goals
    In U.S GAO News
    According to the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (NSVI) issued by the National Security Council (NSC), prevailing in Iraq is a vital U.S. interest because it will help win the war on terror and make America safer, stronger, and more certain of its future. This report (1) assesses the evolving U.S. national strategy for Iraq and (2) evaluates whether the NSVI and its supporting documents address the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy developed by GAO in previous work. In this report, the NSVI and supporting documents are collectively referred to as the U.S. strategy for Iraq.The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and supporting documents incorporate the same desired end-state for U.S. stabilization and reconstruction operations that were first established by the coalition in 2003: a peaceful, united, stable, and secure Iraq, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. However, it is unclear how the United States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq given the significant changes in the assumptions underlying the U.S. strategy. The original plan assumed a permissive security environment. However, an increasingly lethal insurgency undermined the development of effective Iraqi government institutions and delayed plans for an early transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqis. The plan also assumed that U.S. reconstruction funds would help restore Iraq’s essential services to prewar levels, but Iraq’s capacity to maintain, sustain, and manage its rebuilt infrastructure is still being developed. Finally, the plan assumed that the Iraqi government and the international community would help finance Iraq’s development needs, but Iraq has limited resources to contribute to its own reconstruction, and Iraq’s estimated future needs vastly exceed what has been offered by the international community to date. The NSVI is an improvement over previous planning efforts. However, the NSVI and its supporting documents are incomplete because they do not fully address all the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy. On one hand, the strategy’s purpose and scope is clear because it identifies U.S. involvement in Iraq as a vital national interest and central front in the war on terror. The strategy also generally addresses the threats and risks facing the coalition forces and provides a comprehensive description of the desired U.S. political, security, and economic objectives in Iraq. On the other hand, the strategy falls short in three key areas. First, it only partially identifies the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq, including the costs of maintaining U.S. military operations, building Iraqi government capacity at the provincial and national level, and rebuilding critical infrastructure. Second, it only partially identifies which U.S. agencies implement key aspects of the strategy or resolve conflicts among the many implementing agencies. Third, it neither fully addresses how U.S. goals and objectives will be integrated with those of the Iraqi government and the international community, nor does it detail the Iraqi government’s anticipated contribution to its future security and reconstruction needs. In addition, the elements of the strategy are dispersed among the NSVI and seven supporting documents, further limiting its usefulness as a planning and oversight tool.

    [Read More…]

  • Federal agent charged with aiding drug smuggling
    In Justice News
    Read full article at: [Read More…]
  • Correctional Sergeant and Correctional Officer Indicted for Inmate Abuse, Obstruction of Justice
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in Alabama returned a five-count indictment today charging two Alabama men, an Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) sergeant and corrections officer with assaulting an inmate at ADOC’s Staton Correctional Facility and making false statements following the assault.

    [Read More…]

  • Press Availability Following a Meeting with Algerian President Tebboune
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Wendy R. Sherman, Deputy [Read More…]
  • Antitrust Division Supports Modernizing Merger Filing Exemptions For Certain Investments
    In Crime News
    On Monday, September 21, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim concurred in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Federal Register publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the premerger notification rules (the Rules) that implement the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR).

    [Read More…]

  • Papua New Guinea Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel [Read More…]
  • GAO Audits Involving DOD: Status of Efforts to Schedule and Hold Timely Entrance Conferences
    In U.S GAO News
    GAO began 42 new audits that involved the Department of Defense (DOD) in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020. Of the 42 requested entrance conferences (i.e., initial meetings between agency officials and GAO staff) for those audits, DOD scheduled 41 within 14 days of notification and held all 42 entrance conferences within 30 days of notification. Scheduling was delayed for one entrance conference, which was scheduled 21 days after notification, because DOD and GAO were working to reach agreement on the primary action officer, which is the appropriate office or component within the department that coordinates DOD’s response to the audit. The entrance conference was held 8 days after it was scheduled. Entrance conferences allow GAO to communicate its audit objectives and enable agencies to assign key personnel to support the audit work. GAO’s agency protocols govern GAO’s relationships with audited agencies. These protocols assist GAO in scheduling entrance conferences with key agency officials within 14 days of receiving notice of a new audit. The ability of the Congress to conduct effective oversight of federal agencies is enhanced through the timely completion of GAO audits. In past years, DOD experienced difficulty meeting the protocol target for the timely facilitation of entrance conferences. In Senate Report 116-48 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, the Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision for GAO to review DOD’s scheduling and holding of entrance conferences. In this report, GAO’s agency protocols govern GAO’s relationships with audited agencies. These protocols assist GAO in scheduling entrance conferences with key agency officials within 14 days of receiving notice of a new audit. The ability of the Congress to conduct effective oversight of federal agencies is enhanced through the timely completion of GAO audits. In past years, DOD experienced difficulty meeting the protocol target for the timely facilitation of entrance conferences. In Senate Report 116-48 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, the Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision for GAO to review DOD’s scheduling and holding of entrance conferences. In this report, GAO evaluates the extent to which DOD scheduled entrance conferences within 14 days of receiving notice of a new audit, consistent with GAO’s agency protocols, and held those conferences within 30 days. This is the third of four quarterly reports that GAO will produce on this topic for fiscal year 2020. In the first two quarterly reports, GAO found that DOD had improved its ability to meet the protocol target. GAO analyzed data on GAO audits involving DOD and initiated in the third quarter of fiscal year 2020 (April 1, 2020, through June 30, 2020). Specifically, GAO identified the number of notification letters requesting entrance conferences that were sent to DOD during that time period. GAO determined the number of days between when DOD received the notification letter for each new audit and when DOD scheduled the entrance conference and assessed whether DOD scheduled entrance conferences within 14 days of notification, which is the time frame identified in GAO’s agency protocols. GAO also determined the date that each requested entrance conference was held by collecting this information from the relevant GAO team for each audit and assessed whether DOD held entrance conferences for new audits within 30 days of notification, which was the time frame identified in the mandate for this review For more information, contact Elizabeth Field at (202) 512-2775 or Fielde1@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Designation of Chinese Communist Party Official Due to Involvement in Gross Violations of Human Rights
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • United Arab Emirates Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel to the [Read More…]
  • Briefing with Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Ambassador Michael G. Kozak On Human Rights Concerns in Cuba
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael G. Kozak, Acting [Read More…]
  • Justice Department Sues Guam and the Guam Retirement Fund for Denying Servicemembers Proper Pension Credits During Military Service
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department announced today that it has filed suit against the Territory of Guam and the Guam Retirement Fund (GRF) alleging defendants violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) when they refused to properly provide pension credit to servicemembers who used leave from Guam’s leave-sharing program while on active military duty. As a result, Guam and the GRF shorted the retirement benefits and pension annuities of at least five servicemembers and potentially many more.

    [Read More…]

  • Pennsylvania Man Charged with Torture
    In Crime News
    A Pennsylvania man was arrested yesterday on charges alleging that he tortured a victim in the Kurdistan region of Iraq in 2015.

    [Read More…]

  • The U.S. Department of State to Honor Locally Employed Staff Hella and Badye Ladhari as Heroes of U.S. Diplomacy
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Designation of Al-Qa’ida Supporters
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Bureau of Land Management: Better Workforce Planning and Data Would Help Mitigate the Effects of Recent Staff Vacancies
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Since 2016, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) changed its organizational structure by merging or transferring several of its headquarters functions. BLM also moved its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Grand Junction, CO, and relocated most of its headquarters positions to its new headquarters and other offices in 11 western states. In September 2021, the Secretary announced plans to return the headquarters to Washington, D.C. Since 2016, BLM’s workforce composition changed in several ways, including through increases in headquarters vacancies and in temporary reassignments—known as details—to fill the duties of those vacant positions. BLM senior officials told GAO they do not have consistent and reliable data on vacancies agency-wide or the use of details. However, BLM provided some vacancy data for headquarters positions from July 2019 to May 2021. According to these data, the number of vacant headquarters positions increased after BLM announced the relocation of its headquarters in July 2019, as shown in the figure below. BLM Headquarters Vacancies from July 2019 to May 2021 Most BLM staff GAO spoke with said vacancies in key headquarters positions caused delays in creating or clarifying guidance or policy. Further, some said an increased reliance on details negatively affected their office’s performance—for example, because state office staff detailed to headquarters reduced capacity in state offices. Without complete and reliable data on vacancies and details across the agency, BLM officials cannot make informed decisions about filling vacancies and initiating details to help the agency achieve its mission and goals. GAO also found that BLM does not have an agency-wide strategic workforce plan that supports its mission and programmatic goals. BLM officials told GAO their mechanism for strategic workforce planning is a 2019 memorandum, but this memorandum generally does not address the two critical needs that define strategic workforce planning: (1) aligning the human capital program with emerging mission goals and (2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals. Without a strategic workforce plan that addresses these needs, BLM lacks reasonable assurance the agency will have the workforce necessary to achieve its goals in managing millions of acres of public lands. Why GAO Did This Study BLM’s workforce of about 8,800 permanent staff is responsible for a portfolio of public lands, which, according to BLM, encompasses more than 245 million surface acres, primarily in western states. BLM’s mission includes managing these lands for a variety of uses while maintaining natural and cultural resources. BLM headquarters provides national policy direction to the rest of BLM, while state offices generally administer programs in the states. Since 2016, BLM’s workforce has experienced hiring restrictions and a reorganization. GAO was asked to review recent changes to BLM’s workforce and the agency’s workforce planning efforts. This report examines, for the period since 2016, (1) changes in BLM’s organizational structure, (2) changes in BLM’s workforce composition, and (3) the extent to which BLM has had a strategic workforce plan that supports its mission and goals. GAO analyzed BLM workforce data, information on organizational changes, and workforce planning documents from 2016 to 2021, and interviewed 13 BLM staff members from offices affected by organizational and workforce changes.

    [Read More…]

  • Tonga Travel Advisory
    Do not travel to Tonga [Read More…]
  • Department of Justice Announces Department-Wide Policy on Chokeholds and ‘No-Knock’ Entries
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice today announced written department-wide policies explicitly prohibiting the use of “chokeholds” and  “carotid restraints” unless deadly force is authorized, and limiting the circumstances in which the department’s federal law enforcement components are authorized to use unannounced entries. The announcement follows a review with the department’s law enforcement agencies led by Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco.  

    [Read More…]

Source: Network News
Area Control Network

Copyright © 2022 ACN
All Rights Reserved © ACN 2020

ACN Privacy Policies
ACN TOS
Area Control Network (ACN)
Area Control Network
Area Control Network Center