118 STAT. 668 PUBLIC LAW 108–237—JUNE 22, 2004 (3) affect, in any way, the joint and several liability of any party to a civil action described in section 213(a), other than that of the antitrust leniency applicant and cooperating individuals as provided in section 213(a) of this title. SEC. 215. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS. (a) RESTRAINT OF TRADE AMONG THE STATES.—Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) is amended by— (1) striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’; (2) striking ‘‘$350,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’; and (3) striking ‘‘three’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. (b) MONOPOLIZING TRADE.—Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 2) is amended by— (1) striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’; (2) striking ‘‘$350,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’; and (3) striking ‘‘three’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. (c) OTHER RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.—Section 3 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 3) is amended by— (1) striking ‘‘$10,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’; (2) striking ‘‘$350,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000,000’’; and (3) striking ‘‘three’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. Subtitle B—Tunney Act Reform SEC. 221. PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION. (a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PUR POSES.— (1) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— (A) the purpose of the Tunney Act was to ensure that the entry of antitrust consent judgments is in the public interest; and (B) it would misconstrue the meaning and Congres sional intent in enacting the Tunney Act to limit the discre tion of district courts to review antitrust consent judgments solely to determining whether entry of those consent judg ments would make a ‘‘mockery of the judicial function’’. (2) PURPOSES.—The purpose of this section is to effectuate the original Congressional intent in enacting the Tunney Act and to ensure that United States settlements of civil antitrust suits are in the public interest. (b) PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION.—Section 5 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 16) is amended— (1) in subsection (d), by inserting at the end the following: ‘‘Upon application by the United States, the district court may, for good cause (based on a finding that the expense of publica tion in the Federal Register exceeds the public interest benefits to be gained from such publication), authorize an alternative method of public dissemination of the public comments received and the response to those comments.’’; (2) in subsection (e)— (A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by— (i) striking ‘‘court may’’ and inserting ‘‘court shall’’; and (ii) inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Before’’; and (B) striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following: 15 USC 16 note.
�
