Goliath, Inc., a United States producer of gem quality sapphires, set up a subsidiary holding company in the Cayman Islands (Junior, Ltd.) to control all of Goliath's non-United States subsidiaries.
Junior then entered into a cartel agreement with producers of sapphires in those countries (other than the US) where sapphires are found. The cartel agreement allocated markets and set prices for all sapphires sold outside of the United States.
The United States government has now brought suit against both Goliath and Junior for violating the US Sherman Antitrust Act. Goliath answers that it was not a party to the cartel agreement and that the agreement does not affect the US market for sapphires. Junior answers that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts. Are Goliath and Junior correct?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 3, 2020, 8:26 pm ad1c9bdddf
In accordance to BrainMass rules this is not a completion of assignment but only background help.
Since Junior has entered into a cartel agreement with producers of sapphires where sapphires are found it is illegal. Moreover, the setting of prices for all sapphires sold is also prohibited by the anti trust law. The Sherman Act prohibits such monopolies and restrictions on prices.
Now the prohibited actions are being taken by the subsidiary of Goliath. Junior has entered into the cartel, Goliath has not. Junior is a separate entity. Is it formed under the Cayman Island law? Or is it formed under the United Kingdom law?
Under the U.S. Const. art III, § 2, cl. 1; 28 U.S.C. § ...
This solution gives you a detailed discussion on Anti-trust act