Dear Readers,
This CPI issue is focused on leniency programs, their appeal, their success and challenges. United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s leniency program has been in use for over last twenty years and has a solid track record. EU’s leniency program has also been fairly effective. In this context, some of our contributing authors suggest that it may be prudent to allocate resources to other tools of anti-cartel enforcement toolkit and to re-assess the leniency programs. In this issue, we discuss several facets of the leniency and also share perspectives from different jurisdictions (Ecuador, Finland and Mexico), both relatively young and older ones.
This CPI issue is focused on leniency programs, their appeal, their success and challenges. United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s leniency program has been in use for over last twenty years and has a solid track record. EU’s leniency program has also been fairly effective. In this context, some of our contributing authors suggest that it may be prudent to allocate resources to other tools of anti-cartel enforcement toolkit and to re-assess the leniency programs. In this issue, we discuss several facets of the leniency and also share perspectives from different jurisdictions (Ecuador, Finland and Mexico), both relatively young and older ones. Our contributing authors acknowledge that leniency programs seem to be more popular than ever — but there’s growing doubt as to their future. Our experts from the U.S., Europe, and Brazil explain some of the reasons why. Some of our authors present case studies of how developing authorities are tackling complex issues—hearing this month from Finland on damages, Mexico on broadcasting, and Ecuador with a first-year report. There are lessons here for both newish and established competition regimes.
As always, thank you to our great panel of authors.
Sincerely,
CPI Team
