Rick Goldstein, an Antitrust & Competition partner in Orrick's New York office, recently spoke with Policy and Regulatory Report regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's recent reversal of a price-fixing verdict against two Chinese Vitamin C manufacturers. The Second Circuit ruled that the district court should have deferred to China's interpretation of its own laws under the international law principle of comity, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss it. The Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM) filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants' dismissal motion – the first time any Chinese government entity has appeared as an amicus in a U.S. court.
Rick, who along with Steve Bomse represented one of the defendant Vitamin C manufacturers that was not involved in the appeal, noted that the Second Circuit decision indicates that as long as a foreign government is willing to formally appear and offer its views it can "expect a high level of deference from the courts in the interpretation of its own laws."
Rick added that the Second Circuit decision is "especially notable in that, based on [MOFCOM's] evidentiary proffer, the court recognized the differences between the Chinese and US regulatory systems – the former being heavily reliant on regulations issued by various ministries and related entities rather than on codified law [predominant in the US].
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
