No. 16-1220 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. HEBEI WELCOME PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD., ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF OF PROFESSORS OF INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY JONATHAN S. MASSEY Counsel of Record MASSEY & GAIL, LLP 1325 G St. N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 652-4511 [email protected] Dated: March 2, 2018 BATEMAN & SLADE, INC. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI ................................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................1 ARGUMENT ...............................................................5 I. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS ABSTENTION BASED ON INTERNATIONAL COMITY IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................5 II. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION BASED ON INTERNATIONAL COMITY CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND THREATENS TO SUPPLANT MORE NARROWLY TAILORED DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL COMITY ..............9 A. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ABSTENTION DOCTRINE CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ........................9 i 1. The Second Circuit’s Abstention Doctrine Conflicts With This Court’s Prescriptive Comity Decisions ............ 10 2. The Second Circuit’s Abstention Doctrine Conflicts With This Court’s Adjudicative Comity Decisions ............ 15 B. THE SECOND CIRCUIT’S ABSTENTION DOCTRINE THREATENS TO SUPPLANT MORE NARROWLY TAILORED DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL COMITY .................................... 17 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 21 APPENDIX ................................................................ 23 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: AAR Int’l, Inc. v. Nimelias Enters. S.A., 250 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2001) .......................... 10 Al-Abood v. El-Shamari, 217 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2000) .......................... 10 Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (1994) ..........................................7 Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2009) .......................... 10 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) ..........................................7 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519 (1839) .............................6 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ........................ 15 Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) ........................ 4, 10, 15, 16 Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962) ........................................ 18 iii Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. Challoner, 423 U.S. 3 (1973) ..............................................8 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2004) ..........................................7 F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) .......................... 4, 6, 13, 15 French v. Liebmann (In re French), 440 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 2006) .......................... 14 Gross v. German Found. Indus. Initiative, 456 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2006) ............................ 10 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) .............................. 2, 12, 18 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895) ..........................................6 In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2016) .................... passim Interamerican Refining Corp. v. Texaco Maracaibo, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 1291 (D. Del. 1970) ................... 18 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) ...................................... 7, 8 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ........................................ 16 iv Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp., 595 F.2d 1287 (3d Cir. 1979) .......... 2, 11, 13, 18 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) ........................................ 18 Maxwell Commc’n Corp. v. Societe Generale (In re Maxwell Commc’n Corp.), 93 F.3d 1036 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................ 14 Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) .............................. 4, 13, 14 Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2014) .......................... 10 O.N.E. Shipping Ltd. v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., 830 F.2d 449 (2d Cir. 1987) ...................... 11, 20 Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918) ..........................................6 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 246 (1981) ................................... 9, 16 Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (1996) ........................................ 16 Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304 (1918) .................................. 19, 20 RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) ........................ 4, 6, 7, 14 v Royal & Sun All. Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int’l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................... 9, 10 Societe Internationale pour Participation Industrielles et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958) ........................... 17 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., N.T. & S.A., 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976) ...................... 2, 11 Trugman-Nash, Inc. v. N.Z. Dairy Bd., 954 F. Supp. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) .................. 18 Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) ...................... 10 W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int’l, 493 U.S. 400 (1990) ............................ 17, 19, 20 STATUTES: 15 U.S.C. § 1 ...................................................... 1, 2, 16 15 U.S.C. § 6a ............................................................ 13 Securities Exchange Act § 10(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) ............................................ 13 28 U.S.C. § 1330 ..........................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2)-(4) ............................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f) ......................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) ......................................................7 28 U.S.C. § 1602-1611 .................................................7 Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (1976) ...................7 vi RULES: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1..........................8 OTHER AUTHORITIES: A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v. Comm’n (“Wood Pulp”), 1988 E.C.R. 5193 (European Court of Justice) ........................... 12 Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation § 4.2.2 (2017) ................................................... 18 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germ. v. It.), 2012 I.C.J. 97 (Feb. 3) ..................................................................... 12 North Sea Continental Shelf (Germ. v. Den.; Germ. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 20) ....................................................... 12 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 403 (Am. Law Inst. 1987)................................................................ 12 Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States: Jurisdiction (Am. Law Inst., Tentative Draft No. 2, 2016)........................................ 10, 12, 16, 18, 19 vii Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States: Jurisdiction (Am. Law Inst., Tentative Draft No. 3, 2017).................................................. 5, 6, 14, 15 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (Nat’l Conference of Comm’rs on Unif. State Laws 2005) ..............................................7 William S. Dodge, International Comity in American Law, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 2071 (2015) ........................................... 6, 8 viii INTEREST OF AMICI Amici curiae are professors of international litigation with expertise in the various doctrines of U.S. law based on international comity. They have a strong interest in the proper application of these doctrines by U.S. courts. A list of amici and their qualifications is provided in the appendix.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Petitioners alleged that respondents and their co-conspirators established a cartel to fix the prices of vitamin C exported to the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1. Respondents did not deny the allegations but rather claimed that their actions had been required by Chinese law, and respondents moved to dismiss the complaints under the act of state doctrine, the doctrine of foreign sovereign compulsion, and principles of international comity. In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175, 180 (2d Cir. 2016). The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China filed an amicus brief supporting respondents, which represented that under Chinese law all vitamin C legally exported during the relevant time had to be sold at coordinated prices. Id. at 182. The district court rejected each of respondents’ three defenses, both upon a motion to 1 All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Petitioners’ consent is on file with the Clerk. On February 15, 2018, Respondents filed a blanket consent letter with the Clerk. No counsel for any party has authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici or their counsel has made any monetary contribution intended to fund the