draft-leniency-application

name	draft-leniency-application
task_id	antitrust-competition/draft-leniency-application
description	Closes gaps in complete proffer content including coordination event specificity, affected-commerce calculation methodology, Type A condition analysis, and individual participant identification.
activates_for	["planner","solver","checker"]

Skill: DOJ Leniency Application Drafting

1. Subject-matter triage

• This is a dual-draft task: prepare the primary leniency application first, then the separate advisory memorandum.
• Treat the application as the operative filing; do not let the memo substitute for missing proffer facts, condition analysis, or cooperation commitments.
• If the record reveals multiple restraints, participants, time periods, or customer groups, enumerate them before analysis and address each on its own terms.
• Use only the facts supported by the investigation materials; do not invent dates, actors, commerce figures, or escalation facts.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• The draft omits the corporate applicant’s identity, making the filing less usable for DOJ intake and follow-up.
• The draft collapses the Type I analysis into a generic cooperation statement instead of walking through each required condition separately.
• The draft describes anticompetitive conduct at a high level but fails to identify the coordination events, participants, and scope with enough specificity for a reviewing attorney to assess value.
• The draft fails to identify individual participants by name, title, and role, which impairs cooperation planning and internal accountability.
• The draft omits the affected-commerce methodology or treats it as an unsupported conclusion rather than a calculable business exposure.
• The memo is missing, merged into the application, or written without practical recommendations tied to timing and responsibility.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• DOJ Antitrust Division corporate leniency principles govern the application; distinguish automatic treatment for a first-in applicant from discretionary treatment if first-in status is uncertain or prior government awareness may exist.
• Address the core leniency conditions separately and expressly: absence of prior government knowledge, prompt reporting and termination, no coercion or leader-driven conduct, full/continuous/complete cooperation, and restitution or remediation where reasonably possible.
• Frame the factual proffer to satisfy the reviewing standard for usefulness: state the restraint, the relevant time frame, the affected business lines or customer categories, and the coordination mechanisms used.
• Where commerce exposure is discussed, tie the narrative to the method used to identify affected sales, volume, or transactions during the relevant period; do not present a naked figure without methodology.
• Individual accountability analysis should distinguish corporate cooperation commitments from any separate individual-cooperation issues, privilege concerns, and interview strategy.
• Every legal proposition should be anchored to the governing authority or recognized DOJ leniency practice supporting it; do not state a conclusion without naming the rule, doctrine, or program principle that supports it.

4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Identify the applicant

   • State legal entity name, jurisdiction of incorporation, principal place of business, and any relevant organizational identifier if available.
   • If the applicant is part of a broader group, identify the filing entity and describe the relationship to any relevant business unit in plain terms.

2. Determine the leniency posture

   • State whether the record supports first-in treatment or whether the file must hedge for potential discretionary consideration.
   • Analyze each eligibility condition separately and note any factual uncertainty that should be flagged to General Counsel.

3. Build the proffer chronologically

   • Nature of the violation: price fixing, customer allocation, bid rigging, or a combination.
   • Time period: identify start and end points for each restraint and note any gaps or phase changes.
   • Geographic and customer scope: identify the markets, regions, customer types, or procurement channels affected.
   • Coordination events: for each meeting, call, text thread, or other communication, capture date, participants, venue or channel, and subject matter.
   • Coordinated acts: identify pricing moves, customer assignments, bid submissions, quota understandings, or retaliation steps and link each to the triggering discussion if known.

4. Identify the human actors

   • List each known participant by name, title, business role, and role in the conduct.
   • Separate decision-makers, facilitators, attendees, and implementers.
   • Flag any individual whose role appears leadership-oriented, coercive, or isolated from the central agreement.

5. Analyze affected commerce

   • State the methodology used to isolate affected sales or transactions.
   • Identify the period covered, the product or service universe, and any exclusions.
   • If the source material supports an allocation across multiple business lines or periods, analyze each segment separately before summarizing.

6. Draft the cooperation and remediation commitments

   • Commit to preserving documents, making witnesses available, and continuing internal investigation support.
   • Include any restitution or remedial commitment where the facts show a realistic path to doing so.
   • Note any privilege-sensitive steps that need coordination with outside counsel before production or interviews.

7. Prepare the advisory memorandum

   • Address strategic timing, preservation, employee interviews, individual exposure management, and open factual gaps.
   • End with concrete recommendations tied to responsible roles and near-term milestones.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Track the sequence from inception, to coordination, to implementation, to discovery, to reporting; the order matters for leniency posture and witness management.
• Distinguish between conduct that establishes the conspiracy and conduct that merely follows it, because post-agreement implementation may affect both culpability and cooperation strategy.
• If the investigation spans more than one campaign, product line, or customer set, treat each as a separate strand before combining them into a single narrative.
• When multiple participants or communications exist, identify who initiated, who reinforced, who implemented, and who may have withdrawn or resisted; this affects the cooperation story.

6. Output structure conventions

Deliverable 1 — Leniency Application

• Use a professional application format with a clear applicant identification section up front.
• Include a dedicated section for leniency-condition analysis, with each condition addressed in separate prose or subheadings.
• Follow with a factual proffer in chronological order, then a section on affected commerce and calculation method, then a cooperation/remediation commitment section.
• Keep the application factual and persuasive; avoid internal legal speculation that is better reserved for the memo.

Deliverable 2 — Advisory Memorandum to General Counsel

• Use a conventional internal memorandum format with issue framing, risk analysis, and recommendations.
• Cover timing risk, first-in uncertainty, employee and individual exposure, preservation and interview sequencing, and privilege-management considerations.
• Close with a recommended actions section that assigns responsibility and timing to each recommendation.
• Make the memo decision-oriented: it should tell General Counsel what to do next, by whom, and when.