You are on page 1of 5

Case 1:

Events (1) Regal Shipping lowered its fares to half those of its competitors. (2) Plebeian Shipping a U.K. company & seven other shipping companies secretly agreed to lower their own prices until they could run Regal out of business. (3) Regal suffered huge losses and is on the brink of bankruptcy. (4) Regal brought an antitrust suit in the United States against its competitors. Legal Problem: Blocking Statues Applied Rules: (1) They limit the extent to which US plaintiffs can obtain evidence or seek production of commercial documents outside the US for use in investigations or proceedings in US. (2) They make it difficult for plaintiff to enforce a US judgment outside the US. (3) By Virtue of a claw back provision, they allow defendants to bring suit in their home countries to recover the punitive damages they paid in the US. (4) Anti-suit injunctions; foreign courts hand down injunctions forbidding one of their nationals from imitating an antitrust suit in the US against another of their nationals. Conclusion Regal will not succeed to make an English court to compel Plebeian to turn over corporate documents )A( showing the extent of the conspiracy between Plebeian and the other seven of Regal's competitors. (B) Plebeian will succeed to issue an injunction to bar Regal from suing Plebeian in the United State. (C) Other companies will never succeed to prevent regal from continuing with its suit in the United States because the blocking statues is working for English companies only. (D) Plebeian can do to minimize the amount of the judgment it is supposed to pay Regal by going to an English court asking to recover the punitive damages they paid in the US.

Case 3: Facts: Names: - I Company is a large American manufacturer


Major Event: - I company controls 65% of the market in the european community - I company refuses to share the patents and copyrights it owns for the operating system software that controls its computers Legal problem: violation of Article 81 or 82 of the EC Treaty of Rome . Applied rules: Article 81 prohibits normal arm's length competitors from entering into agreements or carrying on concerted practices that either prevents, restrain, or distort trade. The following activities are expressly prohibited: (a) Fixing any trading condition, including price fixing; (b) Limiting or controlling production, markets, technical development, or investment; (c) Allocating markets or sources of supply; (d) Applying unequal terms to parties furnishing equivalent consideration; and (e) Using unrelated tying clauses.125 Article 81 also sets out an exception, providing that agreements or practices that both (1) Contribute to improved product improved distribution of goods, or improved technical processes and (2) Do not prevent competition in a substantial part of the market in question are exempted from the application; the basic rule.126 Article 82 forbids businesses with a dominant position in their marketplace from taking improper advantage of their position to the detriment of consumers.

As with Article 81, specific prohibitions are listed. They are (a) Directly or indirectly imposing unfair prices or trading conditions (b) Limiting production, markets, or technical developments to the prejudice of consumers (c) Applying unequal conditions to equivalent transactions with different trading partners (d) Imposing unrelated tying clauses. There is no exception clause. Conclusion: Company I violate article 82 because: It is dominant in its market place (65% market share) Since other manufacturers cannot make and sell computers that will run the same programs as I Company's computers Therefore Company I is taking improper advantage of its position to the detriment of consumers by limiting technical developments to the prejudice of consumers Company I dose not Violate article 81 as article 81 is concerned with companies agreement that would affect market competition

Case 4
Legal problem: Extraterritorial application of US antitrust law (Long arm statue) Applied rules: - Long arm statue : a law defining the conduct of a foreign person within a state that will subject that person to the jurisdiction of the state - First requirement : personal jurisdiction - Second requirement : subject matter jurisdiction o Effective test o Jurisdictional rule of reason test - First requirement : personal jurisdiction - Defendant must have a contact with US jurisdiction - The defendant must transact business in the forum jurisdiction. This is given a broad interpretation ( office, bank account, property or even subsidiary managed by non-American parent corporation) - The principal limitation is the constitutional respect of due process. This forbids courts to hear cases unless the defendant has a minimum contact with the forum. - Second requirement : subject matter jurisdiction - Two tests are used to determine whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction in American antitrust cases. Both testes are created by judicial legislation o Effective test : companies doing business outside the US will come under the jurisdiction of US courts if their business activity is intended to affect the US commerce and is not de minimis (little importance) o Jurisdictional rule of reason test ; take into account 3 main criteria ; The conduct intended to affect foreign commerce of the US It was of such a type and magnitude to violate Sherman act Fairness and international comity Conclusion - Yes is it could be charged as it satisfies the two conditions for the long Arm Statue o personal jurisdiction (as I company is originally an American company) o subject matter jurisdiction (as this my affect negativly the US exports of US computer manufacturers to EU and imports from European computer manufacturers to US).

Case 5: Facts
1- Touche Ross & Co. a firm of accountant practicing in the Cayman Islands , Carried out audit work in Cayman Island for Bank International Limited . A company incorporated under Cayman law , The bank brought suit in Florida alleging professional negligence against a firm named as Touche Ross & Co. maintaining that it was a multinational partnership of accountants with offices in Florida , New York , Cayman Island and world wide. 2- Touch Ross & Co. constituted under the laws of New York

Legal Problem: Common Enterprise liability Applied Rules


Common enterprise Liability : each member of a common enterprise will have liability for the conduct of the entire enterprise. Consent to the jurisdiction of the host state : A company or a person must give its consent before either will be subject to the jurisdiction of a local state . A company that incorporates or has its main office in a state is said to have expressly consented to the jurisdiction of that state . A foreign company that applies to obtain a certificate to do business in a host state must expressly consent to the states jurisdiction as a condition of obtaining the certificate. One must distinguish between applying for a certificate to do business ( Doing business ) and setting up a subsidiary

Conclusion
Touche Ross & Co. is world wide organization gives certificates to Companies and individuals in accountants. Thus companies and individuals manage they business by their own and separately

Case point
When a firm is seeking to be part of a common enterprise , all firms in the enterprise have to joint liability for the obligations of each other , BUT any particular court may not have personal jurisdiction over many of the foreign firms that from the common enterprise. Thus plaintiffs would be well served to bring suit in a state where at least one firm has plentiful assets.

Case 6: Names
Two Car Manufacturer In Country J 1- Mighty Motor car Co. 2- Novel Automobile Corp. Foreign Car & Truck import Co. headquartered in USA Mighty & Novel signed a non competition agreement with approvals of their country J ministry of trade includes : A) Mighty will sell its vehicles in USA - Novel will not sell its vehicles in USA B) Novel will sell its vehicles in EU Mighty will not sell its vehicles in EU. Foreign Car & Truck import Co. , USA importer of Novel Cars and light trucks is unable to obtain vehicles from Novel Co.to import to USA. Foreign Car & Truck Import CO. has brought suite against Novel in USA court.

Facts

Major events

Legal problem: Competition Law & Jurisdiction Rule of Reason

Applied Rules :

Extraterritorial application of US Sherman - antitrust law Two tests are used to determine whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction in American antitrust cases. Both testes are created by judicial legislation: - Effective test : companies doing business outside the US will come under the jurisdiction of US courts if their business activity is intended to affect the US commerce and is not de minimis (little importance). - Jurisdictional rule of reason test ; take into account 3 main criteria: 1. The conduct intended to affect foreign commerce of the US 2. It was of such a type and magnitude to violate Sherman act 3. Fairness and international comity

Conclusion:

The US Court has jurisdiction Novel request to dismiss the case will be rejected.

Case 7: Major events Foreign Car & Truck import Co. , USA importer of Novel Cars and light trucks is unable to obtain vehicles from Novel Co.to import to USA. Foreign Car & Truck Import CO. has brought suite against Novel in USA court. Legal problem: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Applied Rules :

Article 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community prohibits cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition in the European Economic Area's common market. Article 81 reads, 1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which: (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions; (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment; (c) share markets or sources of supply; (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (e) Make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. Article82 Forbids business with a dominant position in their marketplace to take improper advantages of their positions to detriment .As with article 81, specific prohibitions are listed . They are: 1- Directly or indirectly imposing unfair prices or trading conditions. 2- Limiting production, markets, or technical developments to the prejudice of the consumers. 3- applying unequal conditions to equivalent transactions with different trading partners .and 4- Imposing unrelated tying clauses .Unlike article81, there is no exception clause.

Determining compliance with article 81 & 82 is left slowly to the European commission which can impose substantial fines in its own right. For non European firms the most significant aspect to the EUs business competition rules is their extraterritorial impact .the European commission and the European court of justice have applied the rules to foreign firms to the extent that the firms activities have an effect on trade or commerce within the EU.( in essence , the commission and the court are using the American effect test )thus a foreign firm that conspire with EU firms to monopolize trade within the EU would be in breach of the EC treaty. Similarly, a parent firm would be responsible for the acts of its subsidiaries to the extent that it controls those acts. Also a foreign firm seeking to acquire a competitor within the EU must convince the EU that the resulting merger will not improperly monopolize the marketplace. Conclusion if J is European It may impose fines on undertakings who violate EU antitrust rules on two companies. Conclusion if J is not European No jurisdiction, the Novel request to dismiss the case will be accepted.

Case 8: Involved Parties

Brand X Automobile Manufactured in Germany. Brand X Dealership in Canada. Mr. and Mrs. Y from Toronto. Oklahoma State Court.

Major Events:

Brand X Dealership sold Brand X Automobile to Mr. Y in TORONTO. Mr. and Mrs. Y decided to move with this automobile to MEXICO. And made an accident through state of OKLAHOMA and hade sever injuries. Mr. and Mrs. Y brought product liability suit in OKLAHOMA. THE LEGAL PROBLEM: Product Liability Jurisdiction. THE APPLIED RULES Product Liability Law: It means liability of a manufacture for the injuries caused by its defective products. It attempts to discourage manufacturers from putting defective products into the marketplace by requiring them to assume liability for the injuries their products cause. Extraterritorial Application of Products Liability in the US + EU: US courts require two conditions for the extraterritorial application of product liability laws: First Condition, Personal Jurisdiction: Minimum contacts with the forum A) The defendant purposefully availed itself of doing business in the forum b) The defendant reasonably could have anticipated that it would have to defend itself there. Second Condition, Forum non Convenions: Case should be declined when it is appropriate to hear in municipal court of another state. CONCLUSION Oklahoma State Court will dismiss this case for unavailability of personal jurisdiction as the manufacturer & the dealership has no business in Oklahoma.