Lexis Nexis
 |    |  
Premier Destination for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal Services

Home > Search Legal Topics > Article Abstract



Martindale-Hubbell Article RSS Feeds Article Feeds

Third Circuit Holds That Antitrust Leniency Agreements and Other Forms of Immunity Agreements May Not Prevent Indictment, but Could Forestall Trial


by Daniel S. Savrin View Biography
Brandon L. Bigelow View Biography
Bingham McCutchen LLP View Firm Credentials
Boston Office

January 30, 2007

Previously published on March 30, 2006

A recent Third Circuit decision, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. United States, Docket No. 05-1480 (3d Cir. March 23, 2006), held that corporate and individual parties that were signatories to an immunity agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division were not entitled to an injunction barring their indictment. Overruling a district court's grant of an injunction, the Third Circuit decision held that the issue of whether there was a breach of the immunity agreement by either party, and whether a criminal trial should ensue, was properly addressed post-indictment. While this case arose in the context of the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program, its lessons are of broad application with respect to consideration and negotiation of other forms of immunity and cooperation agreements.


 

The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This article is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.




Total Practice Solutions

 
Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Copyright 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.