Empagran strikes back
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Washington, D.C. federal appeals court will revisit vitamin price-fixing claims in Empagran v. Hoffman-La Roche, on remand from Supreme Court. While the highest court ruled the foreign firms could not make U.S. antitrust claims for damages sustained in foreign countries, it noted Empagran et al. presented an alternative "global market" claim that was not addressed in the appeal (1"The Tan Sheet" June 21, 2004, p. 12). That claim maintains the allegedly anticompetitive activities that led to the injuries could not have occurred without a domestic effect. The appellate court will hear the claim and plans to set a schedule for briefing and oral argument, the court announces Nov. 2...
You may also be interested in...
Supreme Court Vitamin Antitrust Ruling Throws Foreign Claims Out
Foreign firms injured in commerce occurring "significantly" in foreign markets will not be able to pursue antitrust claims in the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled June 14
EU: Good News For IVDs And For Future Transparency Of Medtech Compliance
The IVD industry has long been awaiting a further extension of the deadlines for compliance with the IVD Regulation and for the launch date of the Eudamed database to be brought forward.
California Court’s Inaction On TiO2 Prop 65 First Amendment Case Breeds New Lawsuits
The Personal Care Products Council seeks to stem the rising tide of titanium dioxide Proposition 65 lawsuits, requesting that a California court prohibit the state’s Attorney General and private enforcers from filing and/or prosecuting new suits against cosmetics companies failing to warn about potential TiO2 exposure.