Opinion ID: 495230
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of Extraterritorial Antitrust Jurisdiction

Text: 59 Courts have often grappled with the precise standard to be employed in determining whether American antitrust law should apply to a particular extraterritorial transaction. As Judge Learned Hand wrote over 40 years ago in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir.1945) (on certification from the Supreme Court), [w]e should not impute to Congress an intent to punish all whom its courts can catch, for conduct which has no consequences within the United States. Id. at 443. Alcoa established that in determining when Congress has chosen to attach liability to the conduct outside the United States of persons not in allegiance to it, one must look to the effects upon U.S. commerce. Id. Since Alcoa, different formulations of the effects text have been advanced. 60 In an effort to provide a single standard to determine whether American antitrust laws apply to a given extraterritorial transaction, the Act of 1982 was passed. Congress deliberately refrained from adopting Timberlane's judicial balancing of the interests of the nations involved. The House Committee report, citing Timberlane, disclaimed any intent to prevent [or] encourage additional judicial recognition of the special international characteristics of transactions. House Report at 13, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, p. 2498. 61 It was left to the courts to decide how to employ notions of international comity in extraterritorial antitrust cases. Using this grant of power, the majority concludes that jurisdiction should not be exercised on account of comity considerations and the probable adverse effect upon United States relations with the Republic of Colombia. The primary factor relied upon--Colombia's significant interest in its cargo reservation laws--seems to be insufficient to preclude jurisdiction under controlling Supreme Court precedents. Our highest Court has twice addressed the effect of United States antitrust laws on anticompetitive conduct allegedly aided by foreign protectionist legislation. In both cases it held that such assistance did not oust federal courts from jurisdiction on comity grounds.