Abstract
Abstract
To encourage private negotiations for damages in antitrust cases some jurisdictions subtract a fraction of the redress from the fine. We analyze the effectiveness of this policy. Such a rebate does not encourage settlement negotiations that would otherwise not occur. If, however, the parties settle without the rebate, the introduction of the reduction may increase the settlement amount. Yet, deterrence for those wrongdoers who are actually fined always goes down. Under a leniency program, the rebate does not affect the leniency applicant: she does not pay a fine that can be reduced. The overall effect of a fine reduction on deterrence is therefore negative.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference29 articles.
1. “The distortive effects of antitrust fines based on revenue,”;Bageri;Economic Journal,2013
2. “Litigation and settlement under imperfect information,”;Bebchuck;Rand Journal of Economics,1984
3. “The nash bargaining solution in economic modelling,”;Binmore;Rand Journal of Economics,1986
4. “Optimal leniency programs when firms have cumulative and asymmetric evidence,”;Blatter;Review of Industrial Organization,2018
5. “Private antitrust enforcement in the presence of pre-trial bargaining,”;Bourjade;Journal of Industrial Economics,2009