loader
Page is loading...
light

Alerts

Notes from the Fifth Circuit: Is Light Shining More Favorably on Big Antitrust Judgments?

Highlights

According to a recent decision out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, U.S. antitrust law reaches conduct taking place abroad

Large damages awards based on expert testimony may stand, as this case concluded

A company unable to pay a large judgment may have to turn itself over to the prevailing party

After the mid-1990s, there was a growing sense amongst the antitrust bar that the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had become hostile to antitrust cases. Accordingly, many plaintiffs and their counsel with options to sue elsewhere did exactly that.  

But that may be changing. Most recently, in Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Quanta Storage, Inc., the Fifth Circuit affirmed a $438.65 million antitrust judgment.

The judgment arose after Hewlett-Packard (HP) sued Quanta for illegally fixing the prices of optical disk drives. Quanta essentially bet the company, and when it lost it did not pay the judgment.

On appeal, three issues came to the forefront:  

First, because much of the illegal conduct took place outside the United States, there was a question of whether U.S. law could reach the conduct. The Fifth Circuit had little to no trouble determining that because the optical drives were directly imported into the U.S., the action could support a damages award. And although the question was close factually and legally, the court ultimately agreed with the lower court that drives purchased abroad were properly within HP’s damages model because they were incorporated into computers that were shipped to and sold in the U.S.

Second, the District Court found that HP’s damages model was adequately based on sales data, given that HP’s expert excluded purely foreign purchases and sales.  

Third, although the court reversed the trial court’s order to turn over the company on a short deadline, it affirmed the turnover order itself. Not surprisingly, the case quickly settled after the Fifth Circuit ruled.

Whether this case represents a sea change remains to be seen. At a minimum, the case demonstrates that the Fifth Circuit offers no safe harbor for participants in hard-core antitrust conspiracies, particularly involving price-fixing and the like.

For more information, please contact the Barnes & Thornburg attorney with whom you work or Randy Gordon at 214-258-4148 or rgordon@btlaw.com, Kendall Millard at 317-231-7461 or kendall.millard@btlaw.com, or Paul Olszowka at 312-214-5612 or paul.olszowka@btlaw.com

© 2020 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.

RELATED ARTICLES

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.