A new policy that changes who can be named in corporate plea agreement cases is being welcomed by the defense bar, but some lawyers are unsure of how the change will play out in real-world cases. The change, announced by Assistant Attorney General William Baer earlier this month, means fewer individuals would be named when the DOJ negotiates a plea with a company. Defense lawyers have praised the change, as they have argued that naming the individuals unjustly “tarred” the reputation of those individuals who have been named but not charged. But some lawyers have suggested the policy may complicate plaintiffs’ lawyers looking to take advantage of government investigations, as individuals will not be identified. Additionally, some lawyers speculate that the policy may make it difficult for lawyers of companies not named in the plea agreement but may have been investigated by authorities as part of the same probe.
Featured News
Apartment Giants AvalonBay, Equity Weigh $50 Billion Merger
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
Apple Challenges Indian Competition Regulator Over Financial Data Demand in Antitrust Case
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
EU Judges Leave Final Decision on Portuguese Football Hiring Pact to National Court
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
State AGs Form Bipartisan Task Force To Support Guardrails Around AI
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
Brazil Opens Antitrust Case Into Alleged Airline Price Coordination
Apr 30, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Unilateral Effects
Apr 28, 2026 by
CPI
A Net Present Value Approach to Merger Analysis
Apr 28, 2026 by
Joseph J Simons & Malcolm Coate
Generative AI and Competitive Disruption: Increasingly Relevant for Merger Analysis?
Apr 28, 2026 by
Andrea Coscelli, Emily Chissell, Nitika Bagaria & Tega Akati-Udi
Non-Price Unilateral Effects In Media Mergers
Apr 28, 2026 by
Lapo Filistrucchi & Teresa Oriani
Ecosystem Mergers and Unilateral Effects? A Framework for Assessing the Ecosystem Theory of Harm
Apr 28, 2026 by
Ethel Fonseca, George Tucker & Helder Vasconcelos