The plaintiffs are domestic purchasers of "magnesite." The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class, that the defendants-Chinese producers and exporters of magnesite-engaged in a conspiracy since at least April 2000 to fix the price of magnesite that is exported to and sold in the United States. The plaintiffs allege that this conspiracy has affected hundreds of millions of dollars of United States commerce. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert federal claims pursuant to the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§4, 16, predicated on the defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.
In a remarkably comprehensive opinion dated April 1, 2010, the District Court engaged in extensive fact-finding and held that the FTAIA deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court thoroughly discussed the FTAIA's two exceptions but ultimately determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that either exception was applicable to this case. The District Court thus granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
1. Compare the application of the import trade or commerce exception in Carpet Group with the application in Animal Science. Why did it apply in Carpet Group? Why did it apply in Animal Science?
2. Under the effects test as interpreted in Animal Science, could an effect be "reasonably foreseeable" even if the defendant does not foresee the effect? In a trial, how would you prove that an effect was "reasonably foreseeable"?