美国律师协会就《国际反垄断执法与合作指南》发布评论

美国律师协会就《国际反垄断执法与合作指南》发布评论 [导读：近日，美国律师协会（ABA）反垄断部和国际法部联合发布评论，就此前美国司法部（DOJ）和联邦贸易委员会（FTC）公布的《国际反垄断执法与合作指南》提出了相应修改意见。ABA首先建议《指南》应对《对外贸易反垄断改进法》（FTAIA）的适用问题予以明确。具体而言，FTAIA的适用究竟是请求权要素（substantive element of a claim）的实体性问题还是属事管辖权（subject matter jurisdiction）的程序性问题。若认定为实体性问题，则被告将承担全部举证责任，以证明其行为不受到《谢尔曼法》的规制。在FTAIA的内国效果例外（effects exception，该原则限制谢尔曼法不适用于非进口的外国商业，除非该行为对美国国内或进口商业产生了直接、实质以及合理可预见的影响）的问题上，ABA建议《指南》应明确适用这一原则的门槛，并应与第七巡回法院Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics案的论证相一致。其次，ABA对《指南》第三章的内容表示了一定顾虑，其认为执法机构可能意图背离了最高法院在Hartford Fire Co. v. California案中确立的国际礼让适用 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 ，并要求法院在认定礼让问题时直接采纳执法机构的判断。ABA认为法院应对执法机构的判断予以参考，但必须独立对礼让问题进行认定。此外，ABA还就国家行为原则、调查方法以及刑事调查的相关部分提出了意见。（本条源自ABA网站。导读系本公众号原创，转载请注明文字出自本公众号。）] The American Bar Association’s (ABA) Antitrust Law and International Law sections have submitted joint comments on a proposed update to the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation, according to a 5 December press release from the sections. According to the comments dated 1 December, the sections suggested revisions to the agencies' proposed update to clarify the application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), specifically whether it is a substantive element of a claim or an aspect of subject matter jurisdiction. If the FTAIA is a substantive element of a claim, then the sections said a defendant will be forced to bear the burden and expense of proving that the challenged conduct is beyond the reach of the Sherman Act, and resolution of this question may be delayed until the summary judgment phase of the litigation. The comments suggested clarifications regarding the import commerce exclusion of the FTAIA. The sections said they would welcome clarification as to the difference between certain illustrative examples, particularly with respect to whether an arms’-length sale of the price-fixed component or product to a non-conspirator would render the import commerce exclusion inapplicable. The thresholds for the FTAIA effects exception should also be clarified, the comment said. The sections urged the agencies to clarify that the “gives rise to” clause of the effects exception will be interpreted consistently with the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics. The sections noted they were concerned that Chapter 3 of the proposed update reflected an intention to displace the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) longstanding standard in Hartford Fire Co. v. California by embracing controversial notions of conspiracy jurisdiction and requiring that courts defer to the agencies’ determination of comity issues. According to the sections, the agencies’ own determinations regarding comity should be carefully considered by the courts, but courts must decide comity concerns independently. The sections suggested the updated proposal be revised accordingly and adopt the balancing test of Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass’n. The comments also suggested revisions adopting a standard for foreign soverign compulsion that promotes consistency between antitrust law and other US laws that may be applied extraterritorily. With respect to the Act of State doctrine, the sections suggested revisions to more fully reflect the analysis of W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Envt’l Tectonics Corp., Int’l. Regarding investigative tools, the sections suggested clarification that the proposed update was not intended to lessen the importance of voluntary disclosures and cooperation with foreign authorities in applying compulsory discovery. The sections said they would welcome greater detail regarding the circumstances in which the agencies may disclose confidential information. The sections further suggested revisions to clarify the waiver of confidentiality process. The sections recommended that the update be revised to more fully recognize the concerns relating to extraterritorial remedies. With respect to special considerations in criminal investigations, the sections recommended that the proposed update be strengthened and expanded to express a commitment to coordinate with foreign enforcement authorities to reduce unnecessary, wasteful, and avoidable demands on cooperating entities, and to address the risk of overlapping recovery in international cartel cases. The sections requested the addition of specific suggestions of ways that enforcement agencies can work together to minimize the burdens and expenses of investigations on cooperators, similar to what the DOJ has already proposed in the context of leniency applications. The sections also recommend adding language acknowledging that enforcement authorities should collaborate to harmonize sanctions methodologies and reduce the risk of overlapping, duplicative, and inconsistent penalties in international cartel cases. （阅读完整评论请点击“阅读原文”） -------------------- 微信公共号名称：“反垄断实务评论” 微信号：Antitrust_Review 我们致力于提供中国反垄断法最新资讯，包括法规速递、执法机关动态、行政执法、民事诉讼、中外反垄断法交流、学术研究等。提供案例解析、理论介绍、律师实务操作指南，以及原创反垄断法评论和文章，部分内容为中英文双语。欢迎您的关注。