USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Djordje Petkoski, Matt Modell, Memmi Rasmussen and Tim Harris, A&O Shearman
6.5 Frequency of Completion of Litigation
outcome of the case. However, some statutes provide for the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. For example, in antitrust cases, the Clayton Act allows for the award of attor -
The frequency of completed litigation versus dis - missal or settlement in private antitrust cases depends on various factors such as the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved and the resources of the parties. That said, a significant percentage of antitrust cases are resolved through settlement. Timeframes also vary depending on the com - plexity of the case and the pace set by the court. On average, private antitrust cases in the United States take several years to reach resolution. However, some cases can be resolved more quickly if the parties reach a settlement early in Successful attorneys for class action claim - ants in private antitrust litigation are typically compensated by an amount determined by the court. In the United States, class action attor - neys’ fees are often awarded under “lodestar” method, which multiplies the number of hours spent by an attorney on a case by an hourly rate that is reasonable for the attorney’s experience and skill level. The court may then adjust the lodestar figure based on various factors, such as the complexity of the case, the results obtained, and the risk of non-payment. the litigation process. 6.6 Attorneys’ Fees Attorneys for direct action plaintiffs who are not part of a class or “opt out” of a class, are com - pensated based on agreements with their clients which can include traditional hourly fees or con - tingency fees. 6.7 Costs/Fees Under the default rule in the United States, each party is responsible for paying their own attor - neys’ fees and litigation costs, regardless of the
neys’ fees to the prevailing party. 6.8 Judicial Review or Appeal
In the United States, decisions involving private civil litigation can be subject to appellate review. The standard of review is typically deferential to the lower court’s factual findings and legal con - clusions, and the appellate court will generally only reverse if it finds that the lower court com - mitted a clear error of law or fact. In some cases, there may be further opportunities for review, such as a petition for rehearing or an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 7. Trends in Cartel Enforcement 7.1 Information Sharing as a Cartel Offence Information sharing can be a stand-alone viola - tion of US antitrust laws. The Antitrust Division has taken the position that information exchang - es among competitors “is itself a form of con- certed action that can violate the antitrust laws” , even when done through a third party. Information sharing violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act when it tends to harm competi - tion. In some circumstances, communication between competitors that include certain forms of exchange of highly confidential or sensitive information that can serve as circumstantial evi - dence of an agreement to fix prices. This means that information-sharing claims are subject to the rule of reason analysis, a fact-specific inquiry in each case.
369 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook