A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Science_Products_v._Hebei_Welcome_Pharmaceuticals below:

Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2018 United States Supreme Court case

Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals Supreme Court of the United States Full case name Animal Science Products, Inc., et al, Petitioners v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. Docket no. 16-1220 Citations 585 U.S. ___ (more)

138 S. Ct. 1865; 201

L. Ed. 2d

225

Argument Oral argument Prior Motion to dismiss denied, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 546 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); summary judgment denied, 810 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); reversed, 837 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 734 (2018). A federal court must provide respectful consideration to a foreign government's representation of its own law, but not conclusive effect.
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Majority Ginsburg, joined by unanimous Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1

Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving the interpretation of foreign law in US domestic courts. The case arose out of a controversy in which Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals (Hebei), a company incorporated under Chinese law, and its parent company North China Pharmaceutical Group was accused of price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by Animal Science Products (ASP), which filed a class action against Hebei. Before the district court, Hebei claimed that Chinese law required them to price-fix, and this claim was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce in written submissions to the court. The district court rejected this defense because, in the independent opinion of the judge, Chinese law did not actually impose this requirement; a jury subsequently awarded damages to ASP. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the district court erred by entering into an independent review of foreign law, and that it should have instead, for reasons of international comity, deferred to China's representation of its own law, provided that this representation was "reasonable".[1] In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Second Circuit, finding that respectful consideration must be granted to a foreign government's statements, but not conclusive effect.[2] The case marked the first occasion that the Chinese government appeared as an amicus curiae in oral argument before the US Supreme Court, and was the third time that any foreign government had done so.[3]

United States antitrust law Statutes and
regulations Supreme Court
case law Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 1 case law Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 2 case law Other Sherman
Antitrust Act cases Interstate Commerce Act
case law Clayton Antitrust Act
case law FTC Act case law Robinson–Patman Act
case law Other cases Other federal
case law Ongoing
litigation ‡ Related topics

‡ date of filing

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3