Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan American World Airways
1983 WL 238917, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17219, 568 F. Supp. 811 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of forum non conveniens will not be applied to dismiss a U.S. antitrust action when the alternative foreign forum does not provide a remedy for the alleged violations, as such a dismissal would contravene the strong public policy of enforcing U.S. antitrust laws.
Facts:
- Laker Airways, a British airline, provided low-cost air service on transatlantic routes between the United States and various European countries.
- Laker alleged that a group of American and foreign air carriers, including British Airways, Lufthansa, and Swissair, conspired to destroy its business by engaging in predatory pricing and other anti-competitive practices.
- The alleged scheme was coordinated in part through meetings of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) held in Florida and Switzerland.
- The transatlantic air traffic at issue was structured with the United States as a central 'hub' and multiple European nations as 'spokes'.
- The defendants included corporations based in the United States, Great Britain, and several other European countries.
Procedural Posture:
- Laker Airways filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against multiple American and foreign air carriers.
- In their answers to the complaint, the defendants asserted forum non conveniens as an affirmative defense.
- The defendants also initiated parallel litigation in a British court seeking to interfere with the U.S. proceedings.
- The U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from pursuing the British litigation.
- Laker Airways then moved for partial summary judgment in the U.S. District Court to strike the defendants' affirmative defense of forum non conveniens.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of forum non conveniens permit a U.S. court to dismiss a Sherman Act antitrust claim when the alternative foreign forum does not provide a comparable remedy for the alleged antitrust violations?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Harold H. Greene
No. The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not permit dismissal of a Sherman Act claim when the alternative foreign forum provides no remedy at all for the alleged conduct. While a plaintiff's choice of forum is usually given significant weight, that is especially true where dismissal would effectively deny the plaintiff any chance of recovery. The court reasoned that the United States was the 'hub' of the alleged conspiracy, making it a far more logical forum than any single European 'spoke' country. The defendants' claims of inconvenience regarding witnesses and documents were unpersuasive, given that they are transatlantic air carriers. Crucially, the court, applying the standard from Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, held that while an unfavorable change in law is not usually a dispositive factor, it becomes substantial when the alternative forum's remedy is 'so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all.' Since British law did not recognize the antitrust claims Laker brought under the Sherman Act, dismissing the case in favor of a British court would be a 'cruel hoax' and undermine the strong U.S. public interest in enforcing its antitrust laws, which are considered a 'charter of economic liberty.'
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant limitation on the application of forum non conveniens in the context of U.S. antitrust law. It effectively creates a strong presumption against dismissing Sherman Act claims when the alternative forum lacks a comparable legal remedy, thereby preventing foreign defendants from using the doctrine to evade U.S. antitrust scrutiny. The court's emphasis on the Sherman Act as a fundamental 'charter of economic liberty' elevates the public interest factor in the analysis, making it a nearly insurmountable barrier to dismissal in such cases. This precedent ensures that U.S. courts remain the primary venue for adjudicating claims of anti-competitive conduct affecting U.S. markets, regardless of the defendants' national origins.
