U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

15 U.S.C. § 15a

Suits by United States; amount of recovery; prejudgment interest

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever the United States is hereafter injured in its business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws it may sue therefor in the United States district court for the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by it sustained and the cost of suit. The court may award under this section, pursuant to a motion by the United States promptly made, simple interest on actual damages for the period beginning on the date of service of the pleading of the United States setting forth a claim under the antitrust laws and ending on the date of judgment, or for any shorter period therein, if the court finds that the award of such interest for such period is just in the circumstances. In determining whether an award of interest under this section for any period is just in the circumstances, the court shall consider only—(1) whether the United States or the opposing party, or either party’s representative, made motions or asserted claims or defenses so lacking in merit as to show that such party or representative acted intentionally for delay or otherwise acted in bad faith;(2) whether, in the course of the action involved, the United States or the opposing party, or either party’s representative, violated any applicable rule, statute, or court order providing for sanctions for dilatory behavior or otherwise providing for expeditious proceedings;(3) whether the United States or the opposing party, or either party’s representative, engaged in conduct primarily for the purpose of delaying the litigation or increasing the cost thereof; and(4) whether the award of such interest is necessary to compensate the United States adequately for the injury sustained by the United States.(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 4A, as added July 7, 1955, ch. 283, § 1, 69 Stat. 282; amended Pub. L. 96–349, § 4(a)(2), Sept. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 1156; Pub. L. 101–588, § 5, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2880.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The antitrust laws, referred to in text, are defined in section 12 of this title.

Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–588 substituted “threefold the” for “actual”.

1980—Pub. L. 96–349 inserted provisions respecting award of prejudgment interest including considerations for the court in determining whether an award is just under the circumstances.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–349 applicable only with respect to actions commenced after Sept. 12, 1980, see section 4(b) of Pub. L. 96–349, set out as a note under section 15 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective six months after July 7, 1955, see note set out under section 15b of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2023 · leading case: Hawaii v. Stand. Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251 (1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hawaii v. Stand. Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251 (1972). · cites it 8× “" The legislative history of that provision makes it quite plain that the United States was authorized to recover, not for general injury to the national economy or to the Government's ability to carry out its functions, but only for those injuries suffered in its capacity as a…”
State of Illinois v. Sangamo Constr. Co. & J. L. Simmons Co., Inc., Defendants, 657 F.2d 855 (7th Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “Defendants then point to 15 U.S.C. § 15a, which limits the recovery by the United States in antitrust actions brought for damages sustained in its proprietary capacity to actual damages and costs of suit, but does not provide for recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Fam. of La Cosa Nostra, 683 F. Supp. 1411 (E.D.N.Y 1988). · cites it 4× “§ 15a both preceded the enactment of RICO. Since the damage action provision of § 1964(c) was closely modelled on the Clayton Act, the Court can only conclude that Congress would have expressly authorized the United States to sue for damages to its business or property had…”
Pfizer Inc. v. Gov't of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978). · cites it 2× “282 , 15 U. S. C. § 15a. [18] While THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S dissent says there are "weapons in the arsenals of foreign nations" sufficient to enable them to counter anticompetitive conduct, such as cartels or boycotts, post, at 327-328, such a political remedy is hardly available to…”
Marvin L. Fishman & Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Est. of Arthur M. Wirtz, & Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Est. of Arthur M. Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 15a (1982). In contrast to section 15(a), a court can award the government prejudgment interest, not only when the other party engages in delaying tactics, but also when it is necessary to “compensate the United States adequately for the injury sustained____" 15 U.”
Texas Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630 (1981). “20 Clayton Act §4A, 15 U. S. C. § 15a. 21 Clayton Act §§ 4C-4H, 15 U.”
Script Sec. Solutions LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Tex. 2016). “, 15 U.S.C. § 15a (United States may bring antitrust suit in any district “where the defendant resides”); 18 U.”
Canyon Cnty. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008). “The Court also relied on 15 U.S.C. § 15a, an adjacent provision permitting the federal government to recover damages whenever “injured in its business or property” by an antitrust violation.”
Cascade Nat. Gas Corp. v. El Paso Nat. Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129 (1967). · cites it 2× “282 (1955), 15 U. S. C. § 15a; 38 Stat. 736 , as amended, 737, 15 U.”
United States Postal Serv. v. Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd., 540 U.S. 736 (2004). “See 15 U. S. C. § 15a. So, Cooper’s conclusion that the United States is not an antitrust “person,” in particular not a person who can be an antitrust defendant, was unaltered by Congress’ action; indeed, the means Congress used to amend the antitrust law implicitly ratified…”
In Re Uranium Indus. Antitrust Litig., 458 F. Supp. 1223 (J.P.M.L. 1978). · cites it 5× “§ 15 , 8 or whether TVA should have brought its action under 15 U.S.C. § 15a, 9 authorizing the United States to sue for damages under the antitrust laws.”
Amey, Inc., & John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., Amey, Inc., & John C. Amis, Jr. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1985). “” The United States is not a person under this section, but can sue under section 4A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 15a (Supp.1984). Second, actual injury must be alleged.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 15a(4) — 1 case
Marvin L. Fishman & Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Est. of Arthur M. Wirtz, & Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Est. of Arthur M. Wirtz, 807 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1987). “15 U.S.C. § 15a (1982). In contrast to section 15(a), a court can award the government prejudgment interest, not only when the other party engages in delaying tactics, but also when it is necessary to “compensate the United States adequately for the injury sustained____" 15 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.