No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 830 F.2d 449, 450.
2 Id. at 451.
3 Id.
4 Pub. L. No. 97-290, 96 Stat. 1246 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §6a (1982)).
5 830 F.2d at 451–52.
6 Id. at 452.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 453.
9 Id. at 454.
10 Id. at 455.
11 Id. at 456.
12 Id. at 457.
13 274 U.S. 268 (1927).
14 370 U.S. 690(1962).
15 830 F.2d at 457. The majority asserted that these cases were inapposite because “both related to alleged conspiracies entered into in the United States by United States citizens which sought to monopolize trade in the United States.” Id. at 453 n.4. In contrast, the instant action involved agreements entered into by foreign parties, which were approved by the GOC and related to Colombian commerce. Id.
16 Id. at 458.