http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/45 News and commentary about antitrust, economics, technology, policy Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:03:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/45#comment-764 Antitrust Review » Ignoring the Pink Elephant in the Room: Extraterritoriality and Proximate Cause in the MSG Antitrust Litigation Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:53:01 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/45#comment-764 <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/45#comment-689 Antitrust Review » After Empagran: A Survey of Recent Cases Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:41:02 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/45#comment-689 <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: […]

]]> http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/45#comment-676 Antitrust Review » Empagran Roundup Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:31:12 +0000 http://www.antitrustreview.com/archives/45#comment-676 <p>[...] Discussion of MM Global Services v. The Dow Chemical Co. (2004) [...]</p> […] Discussion of MM Global Services v. The Dow Chemical Co. (2004) […]

]]>