Skip to content
PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

United States · Bill · HR

H.R. 4831 (99th)

A bill to provide for antitrust law violators to be subject to individual responsibility for treble the amount of damages attributable to their violations, and to assure fairness in the allocation and award of antitrust damages.

referredUnited States· United States Congress· EN

Introduced

15 May 1986

Last action

20 May 1986 · Referred

Status

Referred to Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law.

Sponsors

Rep. Brooks, Jack B. [D-TX-9], Rep. Fish, Hamilton, Jr. [R-NY-19], Rep. Synar, Mike [D-OK-2], Rep. Moorhead, Carlos J. [R-CA-22], Rep. Hyde, Henry J. [R-IL-6], Rep. Feighan, Edward F. [D-OH-19], Rep. Kindness, Thomas N. [R-OH-8], Rep. Staggers, Harley O., Jr. [D-WV-2], Rep. Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [R-FL-22], Rep. Hubbard, Carroll, Jr. [D-KY-1], Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH], Rep. Swindall, Patrick L. [R-GA-4], Rep. Byron, Beverly B. [D-MD-6], Rep. Ray, Richard B. [D-GA-3], Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE]

Subjects

Discovery layer

Source updated

30 June 2021

Summary

Amends the Clayton Act to direct the court, in an antitrust action, to reduce the claim of any claimant who releases any person from liability by the greatest of: (1) a stipulated amount; (2) the consideration paid for release; or (3) the actual damages fairly allocable to the released person (or treble such damages where the claim is for treble damages) and interest thereon. Requires the court, in an action based on a contract, combination, or conspiracy among competitors, to conclusively presume that a person has been released from liability if: (1) such person has not been joined as a defendant; and (2) the defendant has established that such person is legally or practically available as a party to the action. Requires damages based on a price-fixing agreement between competitors to be allocated on the basis of: (1) each competitor's proportionate share of the total competitors' overcharges or underpayments where the claim is based on damages sustained by reason of overcharges or payments resulting from a price-fixing agreement; or (2) each party's relative responsibility for the origination or perpetration of the antitrust violation, whichever method the court determines to be more equitable.

This text is taken from the official record. PoliticalRepo does not editorialize.

Timeline

  1. 15 May 1986

    Introduced

    Referred to House Committee on The Judiciary.

    Source: IntroReferral

  2. 15 May 1986

    Introduced

    Introduced in House

    Source: IntroReferral

  3. 15 May 1986

    Introduced

    Introduced in House

    Source: IntroReferral

  4. 20 May 1986

    Referred

    Referred to Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law.

    Source: Committee

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

1 official file

Leesvertaling

Vertaal dit document naar jouw taal. PoliticalRepo bewaart geen aparte kopie per EU-taal.

Documentvertaling op verzoek met downloadbare PDF (logo + link naar de officiële bron). Het bronbestand blijft leidend.

Sponsors

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.

Sources

PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.