Your Source for Up-To-Date News and Research on the Collision Repair Industry
click here to subscribe to the FREE INSIGHT Editor's Desk News Alert Email
SUBSCRIBERS-ONLY
Today's News
INSIGHT This Month
INSIGHT Archives
Survey Center
Letter to the Editor
Business Tools
Subscription Information
CSI Reporting
Financial Analysis
IRS Audit Guide
Management/
Technical Info
Market Watch Rates
INSIGHT Inside this month's issue...
Feedback
Letter to the Editor
Tuesday June 15
Supreme Court Blocks Foreign Price-Fixing Suits
In a case with billions of dollars on the line, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that foreign companies can't automatically press claims of international price-fixing in U.S. courts. The court overturned a lower court decision that had allowed foreign buyers to sue foreign companies over alleged antitrust violations in American courts, so long as they could demonstrate that the alleged wrongdoing hurt U.S. business.By a vote of 8-0 the high court set aside that appeals court ruling, which could have opened large drug manufacturers to new lawsuits over their participation in a vitamin cartel. The cartel set prices for vitamins bought by commercial farmers, food makers and others around the world.
Five companies based in Australia, Ecuador, Panama and Ukraine wanted to use U.S. antitrust laws to pursue damages from foreign drug manufacturers. They sued in America in 2000, claiming they were overcharged for vitamins beginning in the late 1980s.
Drug companies -- including Roche Holding AG of Switzerland, BASF AG of Germany and Rhone-Poulenc SA of France -- have already paid out $1.2 billion to settle price-fixing claims of U.S. customers.
Monday's ruling does not end the case. Vitamin purchasers can still press an alternative legal theory in lower U.S. courts, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. Five other justices agreed with him fully, while Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did not take part, presumably because she holds stock in several drug companies.
The case is F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v Empagran, 03-724.
©2004 Collision Repair Industry INSIGHT
All Rights Reserved
FEATURED
LINKS:
INSIGHT Supports the NABC!
Do You?