Supreme Court Vitamin Antitrust Ruling Throws Foreign Claims Out
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Foreign firms injured in commerce occurring "significantly" in foreign markets will not be able to pursue antitrust claims in the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled June 14
You may also be interested in...
Dismissal Of Foreign Claims In Vitamin Price-Fixing Case Urged By FTC
A Washington, D.C. federal appeals court should move quickly to dismiss an antitrust complaint by foreign bulk vitamin purchasers seeking damages in a long-standing price-fixing case, the government urges
Empagran strikes back
Washington, D.C. federal appeals court will revisit vitamin price-fixing claims in Empagran v. Hoffman-La Roche, on remand from Supreme Court. While the highest court ruled the foreign firms could not make U.S. antitrust claims for damages sustained in foreign countries, it noted Empagran et al. presented an alternative "global market" claim that was not addressed in the appeal (1"The Tan Sheet" June 21, 2004, p. 12). That claim maintains the allegedly anticompetitive activities that led to the injuries could not have occurred without a domestic effect. The appellate court will hear the claim and plans to set a schedule for briefing and oral argument, the court announces Nov. 2...
Supreme Court Ponders U.S. Reach In Vitamin Antitrust Case Oral Arguments
Allowing antitrust claims in U.S. courts for injuries sustained in foreign commerce will weaken amnesty programs designed to detect international cartels, the government argued before the Supreme Court April 26 in a longstanding vitamin antitrust price-fixing case