Recent Decisions

Antitrust--Act of State Doctrine Precludes Judicial Review of Cases in which Private Defendant Induces Foreign Sovereign to Boycott Plaintiff\u27s Services and Products David R. Simon Plaintiff, a designer and manufacturer of short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft, sought damages from defendants for violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant\u27s employees falsely disparaged General Aircraft Corporation\u27s (GAC) STOL aircraft products and services by circulating false and misleading performance reports and engaged in a vendetta designed to drive GAC out of business because of GAC\u27s refusal to conduct Southeast Asian Helio sales under the auspices of defendant Doole and Air American. Plaintiff asserted that in furtherance of this vendetta, Air Asia obtained GAC proprietary data and trade secrets that enabled the defendant to fabricate Hello planes and parts without license at its repair facilities in Taiwan from 1962 to January 31, 1975. Finally, plaintiff alleged that defendant orchestrated a boycott of GAC\u27s STOL aircraft, thereby completing the conspiracy to destroy GAC\u27s competitive position in the marketplace. ==================================== Sovereign Immunity-- Act of State Doctrine--Claim Lies for Iran\u27s Failure to Compensate Following Nationalization David D. Dowd Plaintiffs, three corporations collectively representing American insurance interests in Iran in 1979, filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in an action for damages brought in response to the nationalization without compensation of plaintiffs\u27 Iranian insurance interests by defendants Islamic Republic of Iran and Central Insurance of Iran (CII). This nationalization severed all business relations between plaintiffs, defendants, and those Iranian insurance companies in which plaintiffs had invested. Plaintiffs claimed this nationalization provided no mechanism for adequate compensation in violation of the Treaty of Amity and, independently, international law. Defendants argued that either the act of state doctrine or sovereign immunity precluded the court from awarding partial summary judgment. On plaintiffs\u27 motion for partial summary judgment on liability under the Treaty of Amity and international law, granted