Document: 542 U.S. 155 F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD ET AL.v.EMPAGRAN S. A. AL. No. 03-724. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 26, 2004. Decided June 14, The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act 1982 (FTAIA or Act) provides that the Sherman "shall not apply to conduct involving trade commerce ... with foreign nations," 15 U. C. § 6a, but creates exceptions for significantly harms imports, domestic commerce, American exporters. In this case, vitamin purchasers filed a class action alleging manufacturers and distributors had engaged in price-fixing conspiracy, raising prices States countries, violation Act. As relevant here, defendants (petitioners) moved dismiss suit as (respondents), companies located abroad, who purchased vitamins only outside commerce. dismissing respondents' claims, District applied FTAIA found none its applicable. Appeals reversed, concluding FTAIA's exclusionary rule applied, so did exception has "direct, substantial reasonably foreseeable effect" on "gives rise [Sherman Act] claim," §§ 6a(1)(A), (2). Assuming effect, i. e., higher prices, was independent court nonetheless concluded Act's text, legislative history, policy goal deterring harmful activity made lack connection between two effects inconsequential. Held: Where adversely affects both customers within States, adverse effect is any does apply, thus, neither Act, claim based solely effect. Pp. 161-175. (a) Respondents' threshold argument transactions fall because general applies exports rejected. House Judiciary Committee changed bill's original language from "export export commerce," H. R. 5235, "trade (other than import commerce)" deliberately include involve wholly foreign. 162-163. (b) here reasons. First, ordinarily construes ambiguous statutes avoid unreasonable interference other nations' sovereign authority. This construction reflects customary international law principles cautions courts assume legislators take account legitimate interests when writing laws. It thereby helps potentially conflicting laws different nations work together harmony. While applying America's antitrust can interfere nation's ability regulate own commercial affairs, have long held such application reasonable, hence consistent prescriptive comity principles, insofar reflect effort redress injury caused by anticompetitive conduct. However, it reasonable causes harm alone gives plaintiff's claim. risk same, justification seems insubstantial. some alleged took place America, are consequence sought be forbidden Congress, which rather wanted release (and foreign) constraint harm. Contrary claim, concerns remain real all areas adopted similar country's and, event, disagree dramatically about appropriate remedies. alternative case-by-case analysis preferable an across board exclusion cases too complex prove workable. Second, history suggest Congress designed clarify, perhaps limit, expand, scope There no significant indication at time wrote would thought applicable these circumstances, nor do six respondents rely warrant conclusion. 163-173. (c) additional linguistic arguments might show natural reading statute, considerations previously discussed make clear basic intent. Their deterrence-based also unavailing light contrary enforcement agencies. 173-175. (d) On remand, may consider whether properly preserved their fact effects; if so, decide related P. 175. 315 3d 338, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, concurring judgment, THOMAS, joined, post, p. 176. O'CONNOR, part consideration decision case. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 2 Stephen M. Shapiro argued cause petitioners. With him briefs were Arthur Golden, Tyrone Fahner, Andrew Marovitz, Jeffrey W. Sarles, Lawrence Portnoy, Charles Duggan, John Majoras, Daniel Bromberg, Kenneth Prince, Byrne, Bruce L. Montgomery, D. Stuart Meiklejohn, Michael Denger, Miguel Estrada, Laurence T. Sorkin, Roy Regozin, Donald I. Baker, Klawiter, Peter E. Halle, James Weiss, Jim J. Shoemake, Thomas Mueller, O. Ware, Aileen Meyer, Sutton Keany, Starr, Moses Silverman, Aidan Synnott, Mark Riera, Kevin Sullivan, Todaro, William Kolasky, Edward DuMont. 3 Assistant Attorney General Pate amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Acting Solicitor Kneedler, Deputy Delrahim, Lisa Blatt, Robert B. Nicholson, Steven Mintz, Taft IV, Graubert. 4 Goldstein respondents. Amy Howe, Gottesman, Hausfeld, Paul Gallagher, Brian Ratner.* 5 JUSTICE BREYER Court. 6 (FTAIA) excludes reach much injury. setting forth stating . nations." 96 Stat. 1246, 6a. then rule, where (roughly speaking) 7 We focus upon foreign, injury, independently separate ask questions causes. excluding application? That say, constitute "conduct nations"? conclude does. 8 we falls domestic-injury makes applicable) (1) substantial, (2) "such claim." rests 9 To clarify: issue before us (3) giving more concrete terms, case involves sellers around world agreed fix leading countries Ecuador. that, scenario, purchaser could bring under Ecuador 10 * plaintiffs originally class-action behalf under, inter alia, 26 209, amended, 1, 16 Clayton 38 731, 737, 15, 26. complaint petitioners, distributors, price products countries. 11 petitioners (the here), five Ukraine, Australia, Ecuador, Panama, each bought delivery Civ. 001686TFH, 2001 WL 761360, *4 (D. C., 7, 2001) (describing "wholly foreign"). Respondents never asserted they question presented assumes "transactions occurr[ed] entirely Pet. Cert. (i). dismissed claims. *4. Id., *3-*4. Thereafter, transferred claims another pending subsequent appeal. 343 (CADC 2003). 12 A divided panel reversed. 338. applied. basically read plaintiffs' allege manufacturers' conspiracy "a direct, ordinary brought gave "rise injured customer suit, 6a(1), Those allegations, held, sufficient meet exception's requirements. 3d, 341. 13 assumed prices. Ibid. But activity, matter. Columbia Circuit denied rehearing en banc 4-to-3 vote. App. 44a. 14 granted certiorari resolve split among Courts application. Compare Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 427 (CA5 (exception harm), Kruman Christie's Int'l PLC, 284 384, 400 (CA2 2002) even independent); F.3d, 341 (similar). II seeks exporters firms doing business abroad) prevent them entering into arrangements (say, joint-selling arrangements), however anticompetitive, those affect markets. See Rep. 97-686, pp. 1-3, 9-10 (1982) (hereinafter Report). removing reach, activities taking unless imports exporting one says: "Sections title [the shall commerce) — 17 "(1) 18 "(A) [i. commerce], nations; 19 "(B) nations, person competitor]; "(2) provisions sections title, section. 20 "If operation paragraph (1)(B), States." 21 technical initially lays down placing (nonimport) reach. brings back provided sufficiently domestic, import, (certain) kind considers harmful, "effect" must "giv[e] 22 how requisite III 23 argument. They say exports. says 6a (emphasis added). word "with" means nations. And, contend, consist irrelevant hand. 24 difficulty originated bill referred commerce." 97th Cong., 1st Sess., (1981). subsequently commerce)." And Report part: 25 "The Subcommittee's `export' limitation appeared amendments inapplicable export, within, between, Such should, purposes legislation, treated same manner is, there should jurisdiction absent competitor. amendment therefore deletes references trade, substitutes phrases `other import' trade. thus well covered amendment, not." Report, (emphases For find useful, Report's end Others, considering carefully itself plausible purpose, conclusion, namely, IV 27 turn now presented, Because underlying complex, directly reemphasize base our following: apply) main 28 authority See, e. g., McCulloch Sociedad Nacional de Marineros Honduras, 372 10, 20-22 (1963) (application National Labor Relations foreign-flag vessels); Romero International Terminal Operating Co., 358 354, 382-383 (1959) Jones maritime case); Lauritzen Larsen, 345 571, 578 (1953) (same). (we assume) follow. Restatement (Third) Law 403(1), 403(2) (1986) Restatement) (limiting exercise respect having connections State); Murray Schooner Charming Betsy, Cranch 64, 118 (1804) ("[A]n act congress ought construed violate possible remains"); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. California, 509 764, 817 (1993) (SCALIA, dissenting) (identifying derived principle "`prescriptive comity'"). 29 statutory write harmony particularly needed today's highly interdependent world. 30 No denies laws, conduct, affairs. comity, caused. Aluminum 148 2d 416, 443-444 1945) (L. Hand, J.); Areeda & Turner, ¶ 236 (1978). 31 why claim? Like former serious But, unlike (determining reasonableness basis factors regulating nation, interests, extent regulate, potential conflict). Why supplant, example, Canada's Great Britain's Japan's determination best protect Canadian British Japanese companies? 32 recognize provide greater leeway control through legislation actions companies, see 402; America. complain forbid, seek forbid relevant, intertwined Rather constraints course, (concerns firms' participation cartels addressed "domestic injury" exception). has, definition, little nothing 33 repeat question: good answer question. 34 Hovenkamp treatise notes Appeals' interpretation statute 35 Malaysian maintain against supplier, cartel member, simply noting unnamed third parties [in States] [cartel member's] action. Effectively, worldwide subject matter suitor wishing sue local unhappy sovereign's private enforcement, plaintiff firm injuries [other-than-import] seem excessively rigid infer intended result." Hovenkamp, 273, 51-52 (Supp. 36 agree comment. convincing extension describes. 37 reply many own, point practical likelihood minimal. Leaving fixing side, however, contrary. Fire, S., 797-799 (noting London reinsurance market, while illegal perfectly policy); also, Fugate, Commerce Laws 16.6 (5th ed. 1996) differences European Union vertical restraints). Regardless, primary fixing, application, treble-damages remedies abroad generated considerable controversy. ABA Section Law, Developments 1208-1209 2002). several arguing unjustifiably permit citizens bypass less generous remedial schemes, upsetting balance competing embody. Brief Government Federal Republic Germany et al. Amici Curiae (setting German interest "in seeing extraterritorial States' whose sustained seeking treble damages lawsuits companies"); Canada Amicus ("treble remedy supersede" "national decision"); Japan (finding "particularly troublesome" "interfere[nce] governmental regulation market"). 39 These add permitting pursue undermine policies diminishing incentive cooperate authorities return prosecutorial amnesty. 28-30; 11-14. 19-21 (arguing enforcement). 40 alternatively argue demand exclude board. Rather, sometimes taken) abstaining dictate. Cf., supra, 797, n. 24; Nippon Paper Industries 109 (CA1 1997); Mannington Mills, Inc. Congoleum Corp., 595 1287, 1294-1295 (CA3 1979). 41 view, approach covers kinds agreements. examine law, compared treats information-sharing agreements, patent-licensing conditions, territorial product resale limitations, various forms joint venture, remedy. legally economically nature enterprise lengthier proceedings, appeals, proceedings procedural costs delays themselves threaten integrity system. Even relatively simple tell liability help enforce widespread anti-price-fixing norms (through added deterrence) opposite, hinder (by reducing incentives enter amnesty programs). Compare, Certain Professors Economics 2-4 19-21. How seriously interested resolving empirical impact expeditiously? 42 counsel FTAIA. plays role effects, hoped fundamental component economic system, commend well. win way marketplace ideas, assume, tried impose them, legal imperialism, fiat. 43 expand way, 2-3. circumstances. 44 Tr. Oral Arg. 21; 13; Petitioners Norske, 429 ("[W]e like market arising apparently conceded May 23, 2001, hearing below. 45 Nevertheless, called attention cases, three decided lower courts. first included jointly behavior effects. Timken Roller Bearing 593, (1951) (agreements American, British, French corporations eliminate competition manufacture sale antifriction bearings world, including markets); Lead 332 319, 325-328 (1947) (international members, restraining titanium pigments); Tobacco 221 106, 171-172 (1911) (American tobacco England company divide markets). relief, relief helped abroad. 46 plaintiff, obtain necessary public further broad enough allow carry out mission. 25; du Pont Nemours 366 316, 334 (1961) ("[I]t settled once successfully borne burden establishing doubts resolved favor"). Private plaintiffs, contrast, far likely able secure relief. California Stores 495 271, 295 (1990) ("Our conclusion district power order divestiture [by plaintiffs] not, mean exercised every situation entitled relief"); Areeda, Blair, ¶¶ 303d-303e, 40-45 (2d 2000) (distinguishing government suits terms availability, motives, scope); Griffin, Extraterritoriality EU Enforcement, 67 159, 194 (1999) ("[P]rivate often unwilling degree self-restraint sensibilities generally Government"). difference Government's ability, helpful tells awarded request plaintiffs. 47 Neither explicitly opinions cure Thus obtained 48 refer first, Industria Siciliana Asfalti, Bitumi, Exxon Research Engineering 75 5828-CSH, 1977 1353 (SDNY, Jan. 18, 1977), permitted Italian proceed purely suffered Italy. clear, "inextricably bound up restraints trade," "was reason restraint id., *11, *12 added), dependent upon, of, Part VI, infra. 49 second Dominicus Americana Bohio Gulf Western Industries, Inc., 473 Supp. 680 (SDNY 1979), Dominican Tourist Information Center Republic. court, finding applicable, weighed factors, unlawful partly (to tourists, "export"), depended 688. separately analyze problem Its discuss consequently cannot taken support here. 50 Hunt Mobil Oil 550 68, 72 involved Hunt, oil producer reserves Libya, major producers Libya Persian "seven majors") conspired New York elsewhere difficult agreement Libyan production seen primarily Libya. Dominicus, nowhere considered "act state" doctrine, sole discussion applicability refers matters. 2d, 72, 2. proposition present 51 upshot pre-1982 circumstances assume. Indeed, contemporaneous contains suggesting Timberlane Lumber Bank N. A., 549 597, 613 (CA9 1976) (insisting conduct's "sufficiently large cognizable plaintiffs" added)). 52 Taken together, sets considerations, reflecting convince V 53 way. thing, speaks certain "conduct" isn't matter? sues sues? (namely, determine. 54 Moreover, "the claim" issue." U.S.C. 6a(2) give "a" concede claim; someone else's linguistically speaking, beside point. Nor words geographical limitation; neutral reason, (as opposed beneficial) (citing Interbank Card Assn., 666 6, 1981)). 55 Despite logic, convincing. Linguistically depending circumstances; lawsuit (or harm). sense "plaintiff's 56 At most, language. accept reading. critical mentioned If statute's permits intent, adopt it. reasons stated, believe 57 Finally, will increased Americans foreign-caused supporting enforcement-agency amici, important experience-backed (based amnesty-seeking incentives) whether, balance, side empirically agencies' correct. dispute enough, significance, overcome change 58 reasons, petitioners' furthers purposes, history. VI 59 injury; argue, alternative, independent. linked contend fungible readily transportable, without (i. States), maintained arrangement "but for" condition exception. 60 Appeals, address argument, 341, we. free determine 61 judgment vacated, remanded opinion. 62 ordered. 63 O'CONNOR Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Homer Moyer, Jr., Brady, Alan Horowitz; David Frederick; Kingdom Britain Northern Ireland Ernest Gelhorn Ann Weymouth; Douglas Rosenthal; Business Roundtable Janet McDavid, Jonathan Franklin, Johnson; Chamber Englert, Russell, Max Huffman, Robin Conrad; Austria AG Carter G. Phillips, Virginia Seitz, Shenefield, Rich, Horowitz, Richard Martin, Goldstein, Barist, Westland, Mattiaccio; Victor Reiss. amici affirmance Support Cooper Thompson; Public Citizen Amanda Frost Wolfman; Harry First Massey, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Edgar Gankendorff, Henry Provosty; Ralf Michaels Miller; Joseph Stiglitz Erik Jaffe Mary Boies. vanR. Springer Martin; Darren Bush Rubin. whom THOMAS joins, judgment. I concur susceptible accord deference countries' territories

Category: 7