The Role of Contribution among Defendants in Private Antitrust Litigation
AbstractTo date the experience of the incidence of private actions for damages in antitrust cases has differed markedly across jurisdictions. The procedural rules surrounding private litigation may account for some of these differences. This paper explores the effect of rules concerning contribution among multiple defendants who are joint and severally liable for a cartel infringement. The no-contribution rule is shown to lead to higher levels of aggregate damages and more information revelation to the private plaintiff. However, the no-contribution rule also has the potential to neuter any public leniency programme, thereby possibly reducing the number of cartels detected.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia in its series Working Papers with number 08-3.
Length: 32 pages
Date of creation: Feb 2008
Date of revision:
cartels; leniency; private damages;
Other versions of this item:
- Hviid, Morten & Medvedev, Andrei, 2010. "The role of contribution among defendants in private antitrust litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 306-316, December.
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
- K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
- L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2008-04-15 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2008-04-15 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-CTA-2008-04-15 (Contract Theory & Applications)
- NEP-LAW-2008-04-15 (Law & Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jeong-Yoo Kim & Joon Song, 2007. "Signal Jamming in Pretrial Negotiation with Multiple Defendants," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 177-200, June.
- Massimo Motta & Michele Polo, .
"Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution,"
150, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- Easterbrook, Frank H & Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1980. "Contribution among Antitrust Defendants: A Legal and Economic Analysis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 331-70, October.
- Aubert, Cécile & Kovacic, William & Rey, Patrick, 2006. "The Impact of Leniency and Whistleblowing Programs on Cartels," Open Access publications from University of Toulouse 1 Capitole http://neeo.univ-tlse1.fr, University of Toulouse 1 Capitole.
- Klerman, Daniel, 1996. "Settling Multidefendant Lawsuits: The Advantage of Conditional Setoff Rules," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 445-62, June.
- Feessa, Eberhard & Muehlheusser, Gerd, 2000. "Settling multidefendant lawsuits under incomplete information," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 295-313, June.
- Aubert, Cecile & Rey, Patrick & Kovacic, William E., 2006. "The impact of leniency and whistle-blowing programs on cartels," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1241-1266, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Cheryl Whittkaer) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Cheryl Whittkaer to update the entry or send us the correct address.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.