Client Login Portal
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    Labaton Sucharow
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Network
    • Contact Us
    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Contact Us
    • Knowledge Network
    • Client Login
    • Search
    • addthis
    • link : Client Login
    • knowledge network
    Labaton Sucharow
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • News & Events
      • Press Room
      • Published
      • Events
      • The Liaison
    • Digital Library
      • Videos
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars

    FTAIA Fights to Continue Despite High Court Cert Refusal

    Law360
    June 15, 2015

    Gregory Asciolla discusses recent SCOTUS decision regarding the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act

    Partner and Antitrust & Competition Practice Co-Chair Gregory Asciolla commented on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to not review the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, which, according to Law360, "leaves plaintiffs and defendants alike with murky case law over the limits of U.S. antitrust law abroad at a time when cartel enforcement has become increasingly focused on global plots," in a case involving an LCD panel cartel.

    "The court may have found there was no direct conflict on the definition of 'import commerce' question because AU Optronics Corp. [Hui Hsiung, Hsuan Bin Chen, AU Optronics Corp. and AU Optronics Corp. America Inc. v. U.S.] was a criminal case while Motorola [Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics et al.] and other courts have considered the question in the context of a private action," Asciolla said. "Similarly, both petitions agreed that the 'direct effects' issue was assumed in Motorola and the case really decided on the 'gives rise to' requirement, thus again questioning whether there was a direct conflict as this point in time."

    Useful Links

    • Practice Areas
    • Cases
    • About Us
    • News & Events
    • Our People
    • Knowledge Center

    Our Locations

    footer-list-map_icon New York
    140 Broadway
    New York, NY 10005
    212-907-0700

    footer-list-map_icon Delaware
    222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    302-573-2540

    Useful Links

    footer-list-map_icon Washington, D.C.
    1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20036
    212-907-0700

    Stay Connected

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    Labaton Sucharow
    • Attorney Advertising Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Transparency in Coverage Rule
    • labaton.com
    • Labaton Sucharow All Rights Reserved 2023

    Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

    The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should not take action based upon this information without consulting legal counsel. This site is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon any single source of information, including advertising on this website. You may ask us to send you further information about us, and we urge you to review other sources of information about us.