Term: 2003
Docket: 03-724
F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd, Et Al. v. Empagran S.a. Et Al.
- Pro
03-724 F. HOFFMANN-LAROCHE v. EMPAGRAN S.A. Ruling below: CA DC, 315 F.3d 338 QUESTION PRESENTED The District of Columbia Circuit, in a divided opinion, interpreted the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, to permit U.S. antitrust claims by foreign buyers based on transactions with foreign sellers conducted entirely in foreign countries. Rehearing was denied by a 4-3 vote. The D.C. Circuit's decision conflicts with decisions of other courts of appeals and with the views of the United States. The question presented is as follows: Whether plaintiffs may pursue Sherman Act claims seeking recovery for injuries sustained in transactions occurring entirely outside U.S. commerce. CERT. GRANTED: 12/15/03 J. O'Connor took no part.
The U.S. Supreme Court case F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Empagran S.A., 2003, revolved around the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) of 1982 and its application to foreign companies affected by price-fixing conspiracies that also had an impact on U.S markets. The plaintiffs were a group of foreign vitamin purchasers who claimed they were harmed by a global price-fixing conspiracy among vitamin manufacturers, including F.Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., even though their transactions occurred entirely outside the United States. The question before the court was whether these foreign plaintiffs could bring suit under American antitrust law for conduct that significantly harms overseas commerce but also independently harms U.S commerce. In a unanimous decision, it ruled against Empagran S.A., stating that where price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside and within America but independent causal relationship exists between them, this act does not permit independently injured foreign plaintiff to maintain an action under Sherman Act.
In the dissenting opinion for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Empagran S.A., it was argued that foreign plaintiffs should be allowed to seek damages in U.S courts under American antitrust law, even if their claims are based on independent foreign harm. The dissenters believed that the majority's interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent when enacting this legislation - which was to protect both domestic and international commerce from anti-competitive behavior. They contended that allowing such lawsuits would not cause significant interference with other nations’ sovereign authority as feared by the majority, but rather promote a global system of competition laws while deterring future violations.
