http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4 News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:23:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4#comment-766 Antitrust Review » Ignoring the Pink Elephant in the Room: Extraterritoriality and Proximate Cause in the MSG Antitrust Litigation Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:54:36 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4#comment-766 <p>[...] The In re MSG litigation is similar in may ways to the real-world fact pattern in Empagran. (See this post for some additional context.) Here as there the issue is whether foreign plaintiffs, having bought cartelized goods (here: MSG) at inflated prices from foreign sellers, can sue for damages in the US. Here as there, the cartel agreement harmed both foreign and US customers. Here as there the harm to the foreign plaintiffs (higher prices abroad) depended economically on domestic harm (higher prices for US buyers). [...]</p> […] The In re MSG litigation is similar in may ways to the real-world fact pattern in Empagran. (See this post for some additional context.) Here as there the issue is whether foreign plaintiffs, having bought cartelized goods (here: MSG) at inflated prices from foreign sellers, can sue for damages in the US. Here as there, the cartel agreement harmed both foreign and US customers. Here as there the harm to the foreign plaintiffs (higher prices abroad) depended economically on domestic harm (higher prices for US buyers). […]

]]> http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4#comment-678 Antitrust Review » The End of the Empagran Saga. The D.C. Circuit Rules for the Defendants in Empagran II. Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:29:26 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4#comment-678 <p>[...] On June 28, 2005, the court of appeals for the District of Columbia ruled for the Empagran defendants on remand (Empagran v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, 417 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2005) “Empagran II“). To briefly restate the facts. Empagran, an Ecuadorian company, bought vitamins from BASF (Germany) and Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). BASF and LaRoche, as members of the Vitamins, Inc. cartel, had fixed the prices for vitamins around the world. Empagran sued LaRoche and BASF in the US for treble damages. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court, and the Supreme Court, in June 2004, reversed and remanded in a somewhat cryptic opinion. The following was clear after the Supreme Court’s Empagran I decision: [...]</p> […] On June 28, 2005, the court of appeals for the District of Columbia ruled for the Empagran defendants on remand (Empagran v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, 417 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2005) “Empagran II“). To briefly restate the facts. Empagran, an Ecuadorian company, bought vitamins from BASF (Germany) and Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland). BASF and LaRoche, as members of the Vitamins, Inc. cartel, had fixed the prices for vitamins around the world. Empagran sued LaRoche and BASF in the US for treble damages. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the district court, and the Supreme Court, in June 2004, reversed and remanded in a somewhat cryptic opinion. The following was clear after the Supreme Court’s Empagran I decision: […]

]]> http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4#comment-671 Antitrust Review » Empagran Roundup Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:27:39 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/4#comment-671 <p>[...] Discussion of the Supreme Court’s Empagran I decision. [...]</p> […] Discussion of the Supreme Court’s Empagran I decision. […]

]]>