Search for: "In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litig."
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
MOFCOM Files Brief in U.S. Vitamin C Case Urging Application of Foreign Sovereign Compulsion Defense
6 Jun 2014, 11:55 am
On April 14, 2014, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) of the People’s Republic of China filed an amicus brief in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-4791-cv (2d Cir.), arguing that the district court erred in refusing to apply the foreign sovereign compulsion defense to protect Chinese companies sued in the litigation. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 2:51 pm
In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 13-4791 (2d Cir. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 12:30 pm
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s opinion in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation vacating a $147 million judgment against Chinese vitamin C manufacturers based on the doctrine of international comity. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 6:03 am
Class representatives and their counsel in the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation have won another initial round in their suit alleging that Chinese vitamin C manufacturers conspired to fix prices and to limit the output of vitamin C exported to the United States. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 5:13 pm
On March 14, 2013, the jury in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1738 (E.D.N.Y.) returned a $54.1 million verdict ($162.3 million post-trebling) for the direct-purchaser class plaintiffs after a trial that lasted nearly three weeks. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 5:13 pm
On March 14, 2013, the jury in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1738 (E.D.N.Y.) returned a $54.1 million verdict ($162.3 million post-trebling) for the direct purchaser class plaintiffs after a trial that lasted nearly three weeks. [read post]
31 Mar 2013, 5:13 pm
On March 14, 2013, the jury in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1738 (E.D.N.Y.) returned a $54.1 million verdict ($162.3 million post-trebling) for the direct-purchaser class plaintiffs after a trial that lasted nearly three weeks. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 10:29 am
On Tuesday Nov. 14, the Solicitor General filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, an international antitrust case that raises important questions about international comity and the interpretation of foreign law. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
The case is captioned In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 05-CV-0453 (E.D.N.Y), and is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 12:20 pm
On September 6, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied summary judgment for vitamin C manufacturers in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1738 (Decision (Vit C)). [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 8:08 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in In re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 9:59 am
In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 2012 WL 251909 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 6:56 am
The manufacturers did not meet the burden of proof for the foreign sovereign compulsion defense, and their motion for summary judgment based upon that defense and the related doctrines of comity and act of state were denied.The case is In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 2012-1 Trade Cases ¶77,779; [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1738 (BMC)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
The trials on our agenda for this year are: In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation In March 2013, a federal court jury in Brooklyn, New York, returned a $54.1 million verdict (trebled to $162.3 million) in favor of a class of vitamin C buyers. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 3:50 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s deference to China’s interpretation of its own law in a recent judgment (In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation; Sept. 20, 2016) has multiple implications. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 11:00 am
C. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 1:57 pm
” In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F. 3d 175, 189 (2016). [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 9:07 am
The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act[1] has confounded practitioners and courts alike for years. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 12:49 pm
Securities case.In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 183 Fed. [read post]
