United States: The Rapidly Changing Landscape Of Private Global Antitrust Litigation: Increasingly Serious Implications For U.S. Practitioners

I. INTRODUCTION

The center of gravity when it comes to private litigation of international antitrust disputes is still in the United States, but two trends affecting the legal landscape in the U.S., U.K., and EU are shifting it across the Atlantic. In this article, we address these trends and further discuss their implications for lawyers handling major antitrust disputes that have global footprints. Much of the discussion will focus on cartel litigation because those cases often involve global issues and present the most obvious examples for our discussion.

The first trend is the evolving jurisprudence of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act ("FTAIA"). The FTAIA governs the scope of U.S. antitrust law over sales that implicate foreign comity concerns. While the FTAIA remains among the more baffling statutes to apply, circuit court decisions are multiplying and foreign jurisdictions are adding their own views in support of their own remedies. Complete clarity is likely to remain elusive, but there are categories of commerce involving foreign entities that are increasingly likely to be ruled out of bounds for U.S. courts with the result that foreign courts may be the only venues with jurisdiction over large amounts of sales.

The second key development is that, after many years of discussion, foreign remedies and procedures in the U.K. and other EU member states are finally being defined in ways that can be attractive for plaintiffs.1 In 2013, the European Commission ("Commission") adopted non-binding recommendations on collective redress.2 On November 26, 2014, the Commission also mandated additions to national laws ensuring uniform rules across the EU's 28 member states for private damage actions. These revisions must be implemented by December 27, 2016. National law modifications consequently are underway. There will be changes even in those jurisdictions that already have advanced systems and attract most private antitrust actions, such as the U.K., the Netherlands, and Germany.

Last year, the U.K. adopted rules in the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 that include for the first time an opt-out collective redress mechanism that is similar to a U.S.-style class action system. This law goes far beyond both the Commission's recommendations and what was required under the Directive. No other European Union Member State has followed suit so far.

In short, until recently, private cases were focused on U.S. remedies with few companion cases across the Atlantic. This dynamic has dramatically changed over recent years as cartels investigated in both the U.S. and the EU now routinely trigger private damages actions on both sides of the Atlantic. Many practitioners now assume that international cartel matters will prompt significant private cases filed by large customers either in the U.K., Germany, or the Netherlands. In the future, more European national courts are likely to be involved, especially if Brexit further shifts the balance toward continental Europe. International cartels already have attracted private actions across Europe including: auto glass, DRAM, CRT, LCD, batteries, and air cargo. Representative cases have started to emerge—despite predictions to the contrary. If there are any early successes, those cases are likely to proliferate soon.

We will begin with a brief overview of how we got to where we are now, move to an analysis of the current situation in the U.K. and the EU, and conclude with a discussion of what all of this may mean for practitioners. Specifically, we focus on the exponentially increasing complexity of decisions concerning arbitration, discovery, settlement, and case coordination.

II. EVOLVING LIMITS ON THE SCOPE OF U.S. LAW AND EMERGING FOREIGN REMEDIES

A. Limits on the Scope of U.S. Law

Traditionally, global cases were litigated almost exclusively in the U.S. Plaintiffs were inclined to pursue all of their damage claims in U.S. courts based on the availability of treble damages and attorney's fees. And the American rule on attorney's fees made this a no risk proposition. Moreover, the FTAIA case law was much less developed.

Now, maturing FTAIA jurisprudence has begun to clarify what sales may or may not be addressed in U.S. courts. While parties will continue to disagree about the scope of the U.S. Sherman Act, most would acknowledge that there is a serious risk that a U.S. court will not adjudicate disputes involving foreign sales of components to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. If finished products then are made by those overseas subsidiaries and sold abroad, almost certainly U.S. law will not reach those sales.

The FTAIA was signed into law in 1982, but has not been applied and litigated in earnest until the last fifteen years. The entirety of the surprisingly short statute reads as follows:

Sections 1 to 7 of [the Sherman Act] shall not apply to conduct involving trade or commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations unless—

  1. such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect—

    1. on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign nations, or on import trade or import commerce with foreign nations; or
    2. on export trade or export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such trade or commerce in the United States; and
  1. such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this title, other than this section.

If sections 1 to 7 of this title apply to such conduct only because of the operation of paragraph (1)(B), then sections 1 to 7 of this title shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.3

The FTAIA has two fundamental purposes. First, the statute codifies principles of international comity by limiting the reach of U.S. antitrust laws in order to avoid "interference with other nations' prerogative to safeguard their own citizens from anti-competitive activity within their own borders."4 Second, the FTAIA promotes "certainty in assessing the applicability of American antitrust law to international business transactions and proposed transactions" by articulating a "single, objective test" for "determining whether American antitrust law is to be applied to a particular transaction."5

The FTAIA establishes a general rule that the Sherman Act does not apply to conduct involving foreign commerce.6 The FTAIA then articulates two exceptions. First, under the "import commerce" exclusion, the statute provides that the Sherman Act does apply to conduct involving U.S. import commerce, which courts have defined to mean "transactions that are directly between [U.S.] plaintiff purchasers and [foreign] defendant cartel members."7 Second, the "domestic effects" exception applies only where (1) the foreign conduct at issue had a "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" on U.S. commerce, and (2) that domestic effect "gives rise to" the claim.8

Courts have had a remarkably difficult time applying the FTAIA to business situations that have become common in an increasingly global economy. Although there is still little consensus regarding the exact boundaries of the FTAIA, recent circuit court decisions have given practitioners some clarity over which sales may be out of bounds for U.S. courts.

For example, the FTAIA excludes anticompetitive conduct by foreign companies that only causes a foreign injury. In its first major ruling on the issue, the Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of the FTAIA is to "exclude from the Sherman Act's reach much anticompetitive conduct that causes only foreign injury."9 In Empagran I, a foreign purchaser brought claims in U.S. court for vitamins that were sold into foreign commerce. It was not disputed that the global Vitamins cartel had affected domestic commerce, but defendants argued that the foreign plaintiff's purchases did not give rise to a Sherman Act claim in the same way that a domestic plaintiff satisfied the "domestic injury" exception. The Supreme Court held that U.S. antitrust laws do not apply where "price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside the United States and customers within the United States, but the foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect."10 This case made clear that U.S. antitrust laws do not extend to independent foreign injuries, even if they were caused by an alleged global cartel that also caused domestic injuries.

The FTAIA also implicates foreign purchases made pursuant to a global purchasing agreement. In Motorola Mobility, LLC v. AU Optronic Corp., three sets of purchases of TFT-LCD panels (the major component of LCD screens) were at issue.11 The first set of purchases consisted of LCD panels that were sold directly to Motorola's U.S. parent. These purchases were "import commerce" subject to the Sherman Act, but they comprised only 1% of Motorola's claimed damages. The rest of the LCDs were purchased outside of the U.S. by Motorola's foreign subsidiaries and incorporated into cellphones that were either resold in the U.S. by the parent company ("Category 2" purchases) or sold abroad to foreign purchasers ("Category 3" purchases). The court ruled that Category 3 purchases—which were the majority of Motorola's claimed damages—"can't possibly support a Sherman Act claim" because "neither those cellphones nor their panel components entered the United States." The court also barred Motorola's Category 2 purchases because the added layer of a foreign subsidiary selling the cellphones back to Motorola for resale to U.S. consumers was too tenuous to "give rise" to Motorola's claim under the FTAIA. That the foreign purchases were subject to a master price agreement negotiated between Motorola and LCD manufacturers in the U.S. was not enough, on its own, to bring these purchases under the Sherman Act. Motorola's foreign subsidiaries were thus treated as the foreign purchaser in Empagran, rather than a single enterprise.

The law is still developing as to indirect sales of foreign sourced goods that are sold in the U.S. Take United States v. Hsiung et al.,12 which arose from the same LCD cartel as Motorola, as an example. In Hsiung, AU Optronics sold LCDs to foreign OEMs which then sold "substantial volume of goods" to U.S. consumers. In this criminal case, the Ninth Circuit determined that AUO's conduct, which "targeted" the LCDs "for sale or delivery in the United States," constituted "import commerce" that fell under the purview of the Sherman Act. The Ninth Circuit held that although the guilty verdict could be sustained under the domestic effects exception, there was no need to apply that exception because the DOJ had proved U.S. import commerce. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Hsiung and Motorola appeals, even though some argued that the decisions were in conflict.

As the FTAIA jurisprudence was evolving, many foreign nations were simultaneously developing more robust antitrust regimes that did not exist when the statute was first enacted in 1982. The FTAIA, of course, was explicitly enacted to embrace principles of international comity by limiting the reach of U.S. antitrust laws. U.S. courts have interpreted "interference" to apply to leniency programs, state enforcement actions, and private remedies.

Though not explicitly stated in the decisions, U.S. courts may be giving more deference to comity principles as they begin to understand the remedies that are available abroad. The Governments of Germany, the U.K. and Northern Ireland, Japan, Switzerland and the Netherlands submitted a joint brief as amicus curiae in the Empagran case arguing that "fundamental principles of international law and prescriptive comity limit U.S. court jurisdiction over foreign injuries" and that unrestricted U.S. jurisdiction "would shift private claims to U.S. courts and interfere with the policy choices made by other jurisdictions."13 They explained that the differences in private damages remedies—or lack thereof—should be treated as deliberate policy choices that should be respected by the United States' commitment to international comity."14 The Supreme Court recognized that "the comity concerns remain real as other nations have not in all areas adopted antitrust laws similar to this country's and, in any event, disagree dramatically about appropriate remedies."15

In the Motorola case, the Belgian Competition Authority and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan ("METI") submitted amicus curiae briefs making even stronger comity arguments. The Belgian Competition Authority16 specifically highlighted changes in Belgium's competition regime since Empagran was decided, including adopting a leniency program, new rules on collective redress, the establishment of a new procedure for early settlement of investigations, and its directive to "build consensus . . . across the global antitrust community" through participation in the International Competition Network ("ICN"). The Belgian Competition Authority urged the U.S. not to interfere with its competition regime.

METI17 argued that allowing Motorola to pursue its Category 2 and 3 claims in the U.S. would have "international public policy implications which would adversely affect the ability of the government of Japan to regulate its own economy and govern its own society." One of METI's concerns was that "the applicability of treble damages, which are not common outside US, will be expanded through excessive extraterritorial application of US competition law, and that, as a result, Japan's ability to regulate its own commercial affairs will be interfered." METI added: in civil lawsuits based on injuries alleged to have been incurred as a result of foreign anticompetitive activities, plaintiffs often tend to insist on the remarkably enlarged scope of extraterritorial application." The Seventh Circuit seemed to agree:

To view the full article click here

Footnotes

1 The changes in Europe resulted from a protracted process of consultation. In 2005 the Commission adopted a Green Paper on antitrust damages actions and a White Paper in 2008 which dealt among other things with collective redress. A subsequent public consultation on the proposed European framework for collective redress highlighted the divergence of views among the stakeholders across Europe and the difficulty to reach consensus on a Directive.

2 Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law, 11.6.2013 COM(2013) 401 final.

Originally published in Competition - The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California Vol. 25, No. 2 (Fall 2016).

3 15 U.S.C. § 6a.

4 Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Empagran II").

5 H.R. Rep. No. 97-686 at 2, 5, 8 (reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2487, 2488, 2490, 2493).

6 Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., 542 U.S. 155, 158 (2004) ("Empagran I"); United States v. Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738, 757 (9th Cir. 2015).

7 Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 855 (7th Cir. 2012).

8 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1)-(2).

9 Empagran I, 542 U.S. at 158.

10 Id. at 164.

11 775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2015).

12 778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2015).

13 Brief of the Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Japan, the Swiss Confederation, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellees, Empagran, S.A. et al., v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 2005 WL 3873712 (D.C. Cir. March 9, 2005).

14 Id.

15 Empagran I, 542 U.S. at 155.

16 Brief of the Belgian Competition Authority as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees, Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics, 775 F.3d 816, Case No. 14-8003 Dkt. 113 (Oct. 16, 2014).

17 Brief of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees, Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics, 775 F.3d 816, Case No. 14-8003 Dkt. 119 (Oct. 17, 2014).

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
13 Sep 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Liisa will be giving opening remarks and presenting, "Big Data and Online Behavioral Advertising (OBA): An Advertiser’s Perspective Origins of big data and how to legally acquire data."

26 Sep 2018, Seminar, San Francisco, United States

Please join us for Sheppard Mullin's Labor & Employment Law Update & Happy Hour Seminar Series.

28 Sep 2018, Other, Los Angeles, United States

Leaders today don't just have to worry about nefarious cybercriminals getting "inside" their firewalls; there's an entire ecosystem of SAAS partners, third party vendors and suppliers, and all the hardware from switches to POS terminals that need to be monitored.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions