http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/44 News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:34:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/44#comment-688 Antitrust Review » After Empagran: A Survey of Recent Cases Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:40:34 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/44#comment-688 <p>[...] In order to bring a claim for treble damages in U.S. courts, a foreign plaintiff, having suffered antitrust injury abroad (for example, higher prices from a cartel), must show, among other things, that the defendant’s conduct had a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. commerce, §(1) FTAIA, and that “the domestic effect gave rise to, that is, caused, the plaintiff’s claim,” §(2) FTAIA. If nothing else, that much can be derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman-La Roche v. Empagran. Since Empagran, a number of related cases have reached the lower courts, Sniado v. Bank Austria, MM Global Services v. The Dow Chemical Company, and In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation. Each of these cases takes a slightly different look at the the causal relationship between domestic harm and foreign harm that is required by §(2) FTAIA. The chart below illustrates four variants of that relationship: [...]</p> […] In order to bring a claim for treble damages in U.S. courts, a foreign plaintiff, having suffered antitrust injury abroad (for example, higher prices from a cartel), must show, among other things, that the defendant’s conduct had a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. commerce, §(1) FTAIA, and that “the domestic effect gave rise to, that is, caused, the plaintiff’s claim,” §(2) FTAIA. If nothing else, that much can be derived from the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman-La Roche v. Empagran. Since Empagran, a number of related cases have reached the lower courts, Sniado v. Bank Austria, MM Global Services v. The Dow Chemical Company, and In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation. Each of these cases takes a slightly different look at the the causal relationship between domestic harm and foreign harm that is required by §(2) FTAIA. The chart below illustrates four variants of that relationship: […]

]]>