United States: Antitrust/Competition/Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA)/Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act - The World In U.S. Courts: Summer-Fall 2018

Last Updated: December 6 2018
Article by   Orrick

FTAIA Does Not Block Antitrust Claims Based on Sales of Finished Products Containing Price-Fixed Component to US Customers

In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, US District Court for the Northern District of California, September 20, 2018

This large international antitrust case alleging a conspiracy among Asian manufacturers to fix the prices of capacitors has led to many opinions addressing the applicability of the FTAIA (and US antitrust law) to a variety of different situations.  The present opinion deals with claims by Flextronics USA, Inc., which opted out of the class action, and its foreign affiliates.  The Court's rulings were organized by the situations to which they applied:

  • Capacitors sold and shipped by a non-US entity to a non-US Flextronics entity and incorporated into finished electronic products imported into the US:  The FTAIA does not block US "import commerce," and that term is not limited to products a defendant itself brings into the US.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' conspiracy was "intended to and did inflate the price of capacitors sold in the US," that specific US customers were known to Flextronics's co-conspirators, and that the defendants had "specific conspiratorial discussions" about certain US customers.  The Court found that these facts might support a finding that the FTAIA exception for "import commerce" applied.
  • Capacitors sold and shipped by non-US entity to a non-US Flextronics entity, and incorporated into finished electronics products sold to customers outside the US:  The issue here is whether the products can satisfy the FTAIA requirement that a plaintiff not arguing that US import commerce was involved can show the ex-US conduct a "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on US commerce."  The Court found no basis to find any such effect: "There was no impact on a US purchaser or consumer, and no allegation that anyone in the US paid a supra-competitive price for these capacitors."
  • Capacitors shipped by a Defendant in the US to an Ex-US Customer.   The analysis above applies here:  Plaintiffs cannot sue in the US for alleged anticompetitive effects in other countries.

Conduct of Beneficially-Controlled US Company Imputed to Owners for Jurisdictional Purposes

In re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, US District Court for the Southern District of California, September 5, 2018

[Editor's note:  We apologize for the unusual length of this summary, but it reflects the unusually extensive discussion of relevant issues that the opinion contains.] 

This litigation involves an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of packaged seafood throughout the US.  As relevant here, the Court considered arguments by three defendants that personal jurisdiction did not exist over them:  Lion Capital (UK), a UK private equity firm that owns an American subsidiary, Lion Capital (US), and Big Catch, a Cayman Islands holding company that has an interest in the US Bumble Bee packaged seafood company.  The plaintiffs alleged that Lion Capital (UK) owns a majority of Big Catch.

The Court stated that personal jurisdiction must be based on service of process as authorized by relevant law and satisfaction of the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.  As to the former, it observed that the US antitrust laws provide for worldwide service of process.  As to the later, it stated that service of process throughout the US meant that jurisdiction must be based on a defendant's "minimum contacts" with the US as a whole, not just with the forum State.

"General" personal jurisdiction supports claims of any subject matter, but generally may only be asserted against a corporation where it is "at home"—in the State where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business.  Neither Lion Capital (UK) nor Big Catch is a corporate entity, but the Court applied the corporate test to them.  It found Lion Capital (UK) was "at home" only in the UK because it was organized and had its principal place of business there and most of its "designated members" likewise were UK domiciliaries.  Big Catch similarly was "at home" only in the Cayman Islands, with the Court determining that maintenance of a New York mailing address was insufficient to show otherwise in the absence of evidence that the entity did business there.  Nor did "exceptional circumstances" exist to deviate from the general rule limiting general jurisdiction.  Lion Capital (UK) held out the office of its US subsidiary as belonging to the parent generally, and held Board meetings there, but it remained at most a subsidiary office, especially compared with the scope of Lion Capital's UK operations. 

Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought to impute the operations of Lion Capital (US), over which general jurisdiction existed, to its parent on the theory that the two entities were "alter egos" of one another.  The Court stated that corporate separateness is presumptively respected in jurisdictional analyses, with a plaintiff required to demonstrate the following to overcome it: "(1) that there is such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the two entities no longer exist and (2) that failure to disregard their separate identities would result in fraud or injustice."  The Court recognized that one factor supporting the alter ego theory was Lion Capital (UK)'s apparent characterization of its subsidiary's US office as its own, but without "further evidence of day-to-day control" found the showing inadequate.  The mere existence of shared directors and officers likewise was insufficient, especially given evidence that the two entities had different compensation structures and paid their own employees.

"Specific" personal jurisdiction is more limited and may be found in an antitrust case (1) where a defendant "purposefully directs" its activities toward the forum, (2) the claim "arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities," and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable—i.e., comports with "fair play and substantial justice."  The Court's principal discussion centered on the preliminary question whether the contacts of the US-based entity Lion Bumble Bee could be attributed to Lion Capital (UK) and Big Catch.  It began by reviewing the complicated ownership and control structure among the related entities and concluded that indicia of Lion Capital's "equitable ownership" of Bumble Bee and Big Catch were sufficient to support an alter ago analysis.  But it found no evidence of the parent "dictated every facet" of the subsidiary's affairs, to the level of making hiring and firing or "routine purchase" decisions, for example.  The Court further dismissed the facts that Lion capital (UK) placed a number of directors on Bumble Bee's Board, characterizing that as a routine exercise of control by a parent, and that Bumble Bee maintained a high debt-to-equity ratio, finding the allegation inadequate to meet the test that capitalization be too small to allow a corporation to operate its business and pay its debts as they come due.

The Court then turned to the "purposeful direction" prong of the test for specific personal jurisdiction, finding most relevant the expression of it in the "Calder effects" test:  That the defendant "(1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state."  Although Lion capital (UK) committed no relevant "intentional acts" itself, the Court found that certain of its partners had, and imputed those to the partnership.  The situation was different as to Big Catch, which was merely a holding company.  The test continued as to Lion Capital, and the Court stated that "express aiming" required "something more" than the mere foreseeability of US effects.  The Court found that "more" in evidence that Lion Capital (UK) focused specifically on the US market and placed directors on the board of the US Bumble Bee entity and otherwise was involved with the direction and control of Bumble Bee and indeed had received from Bumble Bee evidence of the alleged conspiracy.

The Court addressed the second prong of the specific personal jurisdiction test by concluding that the Lion Capital's contacts with the forum were the "but for" cause of the plaintiffs' alleged injury of paying higher prices and therefore satisfied the test.  It concluded that the third prong of the test—reasonableness—was satisfied by the fact that Lion Capital (UK) had undeniably inserted itself into the US market through its acquisition of the US Bumble Bee company.  The Court thus concluded that specific personal jurisdiction over Lion Capital (UK) existed. 

Finally, the Court applied the alter ego test to consider whether jurisdiction over Bumble Bee and Lion Capital (UK) could be imputed to Big Catch, the Bahamian holding company.  It rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that alter ego status could be inferred from the large number of American limited partners in Big Catch but gave credence to the fact that the business of Big Catch, with no employees or property, may well be identical to the business of Bumble Bee.  The requirement that a failure to disregard the separate corporate status of Big Catch and Bumble Bee might result in "fraud and injustice" was satisfied by Big Catch having a contingent arrangement to make whole the amount of a criminal fine against Bumble Bee that had been reduced by Bumble Bee's insufficient funding to pay the fine itself.  This, in turn, also led the Court to conclude that specific personal jurisdiction over Lion Capital (UK) could be imputed to Big Catch, as a failure to do so would permit Lion Capital's owners potentially to profit from the alleged fraud for which Big Catch could be liable.

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
17 Dec 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

Orrick partner Evan Hollander will be co-chairing the Practising Law Institute’s annual Nuts and Bolts of Corporate Bankruptcy seminar, which will be held December 17-18, 2018 at PLI New York Center.

19 Dec 2018, Webinar, New York, United States

Intellectual Property partner Rich Martinelli will join The Knowledge Group’s live webcast, “Artificial Intelligence: A Discussion of Intellectual Property Trends and Issues in 2019.”

16 Jan 2019, Other, New York, United States

Intellectual Property partner Paul Fakler will moderate the “The Future of Music Mechanical Licensing” panel at the Copyright and Technology 2019 Conference.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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