Cartel deterrence and settlements: the Brazilian experience
Settlements are an important part of a program of cartel deterrence, particularly when the likelihood of conviction and the litigation costs are higher. This type of negotiated procedure to reach finality is in essence complementary to the fully adversarial procedures associated to the trial by the administrative or judicial courts, and to other investigative instruments, such as the leniency agreement. The Brazilian experience provides some insights about the different models of direct settlement in cartel cases and the complex interaction among settlements, leniency agreements, and trial outcome. First, there is leeway for the complementary models of settlements, the first oriented mainly to increasing the likelihood of detection, and the second oriented to saving social costs of litigation. Second, the concern with the preservation of the demand for leniency agreements led the competition authority to restrict the use of settlements, which are effectively designed for the defendants that are likely guilty and give higher value to finality. The recent experience illustrates that the current settlement policy has not caused any adverse effect on leniency agreements, while reducing litigation costs and granting finality in some cases.
|Date of creation:||22 Jul 2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Rua Itapeva, 474, 13o andar, CEP 01332-000, São Paulo - SP|
Phone: 55 (011) 3799-3350
Fax: 55 (011) 3799-3357
Web page: http://eesp.fgv.br
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- John M. Connor, 2004.
"Global Antitrust Prosecutions of Modern International Cartels,"
Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade,
Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 239-267, 09.
- John M. Connor, 2004. "Global Antitrust Prosecutions Of Modern International Cartels," Working Papers 04-15, Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fgv:eesptd:265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Núcleo de Computação da FGV/EPGE)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.