Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers | Wall Street Journal

Discussion in 'China & Asia Pacific' started by Martian, Sep 21, 2016.

  1. Martian

    Martian Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,688
    Likes Received:
    339
    A US Federal Appeals Court ruled a US Federal District judge in Brooklyn lacked jurisdiction over Chinese companies. When US and Chinese laws disagree, a US Federal District judge cannot assert the primacy of US laws. The conflict over US and Chinese laws can only be resolved through diplomacy.

    Otherwise, China would retaliate and assert the primacy of Chinese laws over US companies that conduct business in China.

    The US Federal Appeals Court unanimously sided with China in a 3-0 ruling.
    ----------

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers | The Wall Street Journal

    "Ruling says companies can’t be held liable in U.S. courts
    ...
    In a historic move, China’s Ministry of Commerce participated in the case as a friend of the court and urged U.S. judges to dismiss the case against the Chinese firms, Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. and affiliated company North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp.

    The New York-based Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued Tuesday’s decision, said it was the first time any entity of the Chinese government has participated in such a fashion in any U.S. court."


    [​IMG]
    ----------

    China Vitamin C price-fixing verdict voided by U.S. appeals court | Reuters

    "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the case should not have gone to trial after China, in a 'historic act,' formally advised that its laws required the vitamin C makers to violate the Sherman Act, a U.S. antitrust law.

    Writing for a 3-0 panel, Circuit Judge Peter Hall said the Brooklyn judge who presided over the March 2013 jury verdict should have deferred to China's interpretation of its own laws, regardless of the country's motives.

    Hall said principles of international comity, and the 'stark differences' between the U.S. and Chinese legal and economic regulatory schemes, meant the judge should not have asserted jurisdiction."


    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2016

Share This Page