Empagran is a foreign corporation, domiciled overseas, that purchased vitamins abroad from F. Hoffman-Laroche and other vitamin producers that distribute and sell vitamins around the world. Empagran claims that F. Hoffman-Laroche and other vitamin companies, both foreign and domestic, engaged in an overarching worldwide conspiracy to raise, stabilize, and maintain the prices of vitamins by directly fixing prices as well as by allocating market share. It contends that this cartel operated on a global basis and affected virtually every market where the producers operated worldwide. 

Further, it asserts that this unlawful price-fixing conduct had adverse effects in the United States and in other nations that caused injury to Empagran in connection with its foreign purchases of vitamins. It seeks both injunctive relief and damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. F. Hoffman-Laroche and the other vitamin producers move to dismiss Empagran’s lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the U.S. antitrust laws because the injuries Empagran seeks to redress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to U.S. commerce. Should the court dismiss this lawsuit because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction? Explain.