CARRIER CORPORATION; CARRIER SA; CARRIER ITALIA S.P.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. OUTOKUMPU OYJ; OUTOKUMPU COPPER PRODUCTS OY; OUTOKUMPU COPPER FRANKLIN, INC.; OUTOKUMPU COPPER (U.S.A.), INC., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC.; MUELLER EUROPE LTD; EUROPA METALLI SPA; TREFIMETAUX SA, Defendants., 673 F.3d 430

Summary

The buyers alleged the U.S. market was intertwined in defendants' allocation efforts with the result of artificially raised prices for transactions with U.S. buyers, thus, meeting any threshold jurisdictional requirement under the Sherman Act on foreign conduct claims. The complaint referenced specific dates for the alleged cartel's meetings and the agreements reached. Borrowing substance from a European decision and building on those findings did not render the allegations less valid. A facial subject matter jurisdiction attack failed. So too did a factual attack in that the extent of U.S.-market impact also spoke to whether there was sufficient injury or anticompetitive effect to establish liability; the jurisdictional and substantive inquiries were not wholly independent and any factual finding was improper. The defendant entities allegedly were operated and portrayed as a "single global enterprise" with key executives overlapping and vital management personnel rotated through ...