We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Department of Justice recommended Tuesday that a California
judge impose a $1 billion fine on AU Optronics, a Taiwanese LCD
screen manufacturer convicted of price-fixing in May. The DOJ also
asked that the judge sentence former AUO president Hsuan Bin Chen
and former executive vice president Hui Hsiung to 10 years in
prison, and levy individual fines of $1 million against each of
them.
The recommended penalties, if approved by the court, would be
the largest criminal penalties ever imposed by an American court in
an antitrust case. The billion-dollar fine would double the
previous record fine of $500 million, and the ten-year prison terms
would each be six years longer than the longest prison sentence
ever received by an antitrust defendant.
AUO's coconspirators received light punishments relative to
those currently being recommended by the Justice Department. LG
Phillips, Sharp, and Chunghwa paid fines totaling $585 million. Of
the ten executives from AUO's coconspirator corporations that
were sentenced to prison, one served fourteen months in prison,
while the other nine received sentences of less than one year.
AUO faces more severe penalties because they chose to go to
trial, rather than settling with the antitrust authorities. The
Justice Department wrote that such penalties were warranted for AUO
because AUO "refused to cooperate, assist the investigation,
or accept responsibility." Because of the huge sums of money
that can be involved in antitrust cases such as this one, the
effect of this policy is to erect a substantial barrier for
companies seeking to force the government to prove its case at
trial rather than to settle in advance of trial. It also leaves a
lingering question as to whether the policy is unfair, as companies
ultimately forgo the right to trial by jury by the mere fact that
– if they take that approach – they face the
prospect of monumental penalties that far outstrip those facing
settling co-conspirators.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a recent speech, Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Joshua Wright jumped into the debate over the proper approach for analyzing the potential anticompetitive effects of loyalty discount programs.
The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced two significant changes to its practice regarding corporate plea agreements for individuals charged with antitrust violations, such as price fixing and bid rigging.
Acting to rid European Union markets of restrictive trade practices like seemingly endemic industrial cartels, the European Commission has long sought to employ an arsenal of weapons to deter violations of European competition law.
The Federal Trade Commission recently recorded yet another victory in its continuing efforts to limit the scope and application of antitrust immunity under the state action doctrine.
