The policy of the Genesee Valley Psychological Association (“the Association”) is to comply with all federal, state and local laws, including the antitrust laws. It is expected that all members involved in Association activities will be sensitive to the unique antitrust issues raised by trade associations and, accordingly, will take all steps necessary to comply with applicable antitrust laws. While the Association brings significant pro-competitive benefits to industry participants, suppliers, and customers, it is committed to not becoming a vehicle for firms to reach unlawful agreements regarding prices or other aspects of competition or to boycott or exclude firms from the market.
Violations of the antitrust laws can have significant legal and financial consequences for the Association, its members and their employees.
Antitrust violations may be prosecuted as felonies and are punishable by significant fines and imprisonment. Individual violators can be fined up to $1 million and sentenced to up to 10 years in federal prison for each offense, and corporations can be fined up to $100 million for each offense. Under some circumstances, the maximum fines can go even higher, to twice the gain or loss resulting from the violation. The events that give rise to an antitrust violation often provide the basis for other charges, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements to the government. Those charges, if proven, carry additional penalties.
The consequences of a criminal antitrust violation for an association or corporation include: exposure to follow-on treble damages suits, exposure to enforcement actions in other jurisdictions or countries, disruption of normal business activities and the expense of defending investigations and lawsuits. The consequences for an individual who commits an antitrust violation include loss of freedom (jail), loss of job and benefits, loss of community status and reputation, loss of future employment opportunities and exposure to litigation.
In contrast to criminal actions, civil cases can be initiated by individuals, companies and government officials. They can seek to recover three times the amount of the damages, plus attorney's fees. Even unfounded allegations can be a significant drain on an association’s and its members’ financial and human resources, as well as an unproductive distraction from the Association's mission. For these reasons, the Association strives to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in all its dealings and activities.
The principal federal antitrust and competition laws are the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Certain antitrust violations are referred to as “per se” offenses. Conduct that falls in this category is automatically presumed to be illegal by the courts, and the absence of any actual harm to competition will not be a defense. Even an agreement that is obviously for the good of society may be a violation of the antitrust laws if it adversely affects competition. Conspiracies falling in the “per se” category are likely to be prosecuted as criminal offenses, and include the following:
There are other activities that, though typically not subject to criminal prosecution, are nevertheless sensitive, and may lead to investigations or litigation and liability when they constitute unreasonable restraints upon competition.
Association meetings, conference calls and other activities by their very nature bring competitors together, and although they generally are lawful and procompetitive, they also might provide opportunities to reach unlawful agreements. It is important to remember that an antitrust violation does not require proof of a formal agreement. A discussion among competitors of a sensitive topic, such as the desirability of a price increase, followed by common action by those involved or present, could, depending on the circumstances, be enough to convince a judge or jury that there was an unlawful agreement.
In light of the costs involved in defending antitrust claims, even when they are without merit, it is necessary to conduct Association meetings in a manner that avoids even the appearance of improper conduct. Generally, the best way to accomplish this is by following regular procedures and avoiding competitively sensitive topics.
Meetings of the Association will be conducted according to the following procedures:
All Association meetings will be scheduled by the Association’s headquarters office, and no informal sessions or meetings will be held.
Because of their sensitive nature, certain topics will not be discussed at meetings of the Association unless otherwise advised by the Association’s legal counsel. These prohibitions apply equally to all Association-sponsored social functions or other informal Association gatherings. Off-limit topics include:
Sometimes an enthusiastic person may make statements at a meeting that sound as if they could be indicative of the existence of an express or implied agreement violating the antitrust laws. Should such a statement be made at an Association meeting, the Association’s legal counsel or, in the absence of legal counsel, the meeting chair or senior staff person present will immediately clarify the situation by determining that no antitrust concern is raised or, if there is such a concern, by terminating discussion of the inappropriate topic. If such a discussion nevertheless continues, the meeting will be terminated.
All new Association programs and program modifications which have potential antitrust significance will be reviewed and approved by the Association’s legal counsel. The Association’s legal counsel should be consulted regularly whenever any question of antitrust compliance arises in the context of the Association's activities.
The Association’s membership criteria must be carefully drafted and applied. The Association will not deny membership to a qualified applicant if such denial unreasonably restrains trade, nor will a member be expelled for reasons that would be insufficient to deny membership. Any rejection of a membership application or any proposed expulsion of a member will be subject to review by the Association’s legal counsel before taking effect.
Many antitrust investigations and lawsuits are fueled by poorly phrased or exaggerated statements in internal documents, with e-mails being a leading culprit. Common sense should be used when composing documents and e-mails. Members should avoid language that implies illegal conduct, such as references to “controlling the market” or “agreeing on pricing.” No matter how informal or private a communication is intended to be, it must be assumed that anything written in a document or e-mail is potentially discoverable in an investigation or lawsuit. As a general rule, nothing should be put in writing that you would not want read aloud to a prosecutor, plaintiff's lawyer, or jury composed of people who know nothing about you or your business.
Trade association standard-setting and certification programs and codes of ethics can be highly procompetitive and beneficial to suppliers and customers. Antitrust problems will arise, however, if a standard or certification program or a code of ethics is used as a device for fixing prices, restraining output, or chilling innovation, or if it has the effect of boycotting or unreasonably excluding competitors from the market.
Standards and certification programs and codes of ethics must serve identifiable public interests, such as preventing false or deceptive marketing practices, and they must do so in a manner that does not unreasonably restrict competition. Standards and certification programs and codes of ethics must not have the purpose or effect of unreasonably restraining price or quality competition, limiting output of products or services, or discouraging innovation. No company should be denied certification on grounds that it is a nonmember of any association or organization, that it is a “discounter,” or that it is a foreign corporation. No company should be boycotted on any grounds, including lack of certification or noncompliance with a code of ethics.
Standards and certification programs and codes of ethics should adhere to principles of voluntariness and due process. Due process means that all companies with a direct and material stake have a right to participate through the standards development organization in the formation of the standard, certification criteria, or code of ethics; the process is open and free from dominance by any particular industry segment or company; and there is a right to appeal from adverse actions.
More specifically, any standard, certification, or code of ethics activity of the Association will be conducted in accordance with the following basic rules:
The Board of Directors has the responsibility to oversee the implementation of the Association's Antitrust Compliance Policy. The chief staff executive is responsible for day-to-day management and implementation of the Policy. The Association’s legal counsel is responsible for advising and periodically updating the Association and its leadership on antitrust law developments and on any necessary revisions of this Policy.
All members of the Association will receive a copy of this Policy when they join the Association; all members of the Association’s Board of Directors will be required to sign an acknowledgment that they have received and read the Policy and agree to act in accordance with its terms.
Reports of noncompliance with this Policy should be promptly communicated to the Association’s chief staff executive. If there is reason to believe that an antitrust violation may have been committed, an investigation will be undertaken promptly. If an instance of questionable conduct is presented, the chief staff executive will consult with the Association’s legal counsel promptly to determine whether an internal investigation is appropriate.
Members that violate or fail to comply with this
Policy will receive a letter from the Association’s
legal counsel. Because compliance with Association
policies is a membership requirement, membership can be
terminated as a result of member company violations of
the Association's Antitrust Compliance Policy.