F. HOFFMAN-La ROCHE LTD. et al. v. EMPAGRAN S. A. et al., 542 U.S. ---Subscribe to Cases that cite 03-724
F. HOFFMAN-La ROCHE LTD. et al. v. EMPAGRAN S. A. et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 03-724. Argued April 26, 2004--Decided June 14, 2004
The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA) provides that the Sherman Act "shall not apply to conduct involving trade or commerce ... with foreign nations," 15 U. S. C. §6a, but creates exceptions for conduct that significantly harms imports, domestic commerce, or American exporters. In this case, vitamin purchasers filed a class action alleging that vitamin manufacturers and distributors had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy, raising vitamin prices in the United States and foreign countries, in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. As relevant here, defendants (petitioners) moved to dismiss the suit as to the foreign purchasers (respondents), foreign companies located abroad, who had purchased vitamins only outside United States commerce. In dismissing respondents' claims, the District Court applied the FTAIA and found none of its exceptions applicable. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the FTAIA's exclusionary rule applied, but so did its exception for conduct that has a "direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect" on domestic commerce that "gives rise to a [Sherman Act] claim," §§6a(1)(A), (2). Assuming that the foreign effect, i.e., higher foreign prices, was independent of the domestic effect, i.e., higher domestic prices, the court nonetheless concluded that the Act's text, legislative history, and policy goal of deterring harmful price-fixing activity made the lack of connection between the two effects inconsequential.
Held: Where the price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside and within the United States, but the adverse foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect, the FTAIA exception does not apply, and thus, neither does the Sherman Act, to a claim based solely on the foreign effect. Pp. 4-19.