15 U.S.C. § 6
Forfeiture of property in transit
Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section 1 of this title, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases, 1931–2018 · leading case: McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005).
McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 6 (a)(1). The statute exempts “import trade or import commerce” from its extraterritoriality effects test; such import trade or import commerce would seem to be reachable so long as the domestic commerce tests are met.”
Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a) ). DI 134 at 24-25. Lotes Co.”
United States v. Elmore Roy Anderson, 326 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). “antitrust law does not apply to non-import foreign commerce unless (1) the conduct *1330 has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on domestic commerce, and (2) the effect gives rise to a claim under the Sherman Act.”
De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945). “9 15 U. S. C. § 6 . 10 15 U. S. C. § 11 . 11 Deckert v.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. The Alaska R.R., 659 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “§ 4 , and seizure of property under § 6, 15 U.S.C. § 6 . *246 Appellants stress the broad policy of the Sherman Act and ask us to develop from that policy coverage of the United States and its instrumentalities as defendants.”
Health Care Equalization Comm. v. Iowa Med. Soc'y, 501 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Iowa 1980). “at 48 , explains: Section 5 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6 and § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D.N.J. 2014). “Dismissal based on Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAd A”) The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a), addresses “conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations” by limiting the applicability of the Sherman Act (sections 1-7) only to…”
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 291 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “FTAIA Defendants also contend that some purchasers of finished TFT-LCD products would face a jurisdictional defense under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a), that some purchasers of TFT-LCD panels would not face, thus presenting typicality…”
United States Nav. Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 50 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1931). “" In the opinion in the Keogh Case it was further observed that a combination of carriers to fix nondiscriminatory rates might still be illegal under the Anti-Trust Acts and the government might have redress by criminal proceedings under section 3 (15 USCA § 3), by injunction…”
Vest v. Waring, 565 F. Supp. 674 (N.D. Ga. 1983). “This court has discovered no federal statute authorizing extraterritorial service of process upon an individual nonresident defendant in a private antitrust action; 15 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 25 authorize such service only in antitrust suits brought by the U.”
In re Infineon Tech. AG Sec. Litig., 266 F.R.D. 386 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “See 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a). Defendants cite no authority showing that the securities laws have a similarly limited reach.”
CSr Ltd. v. Cigna Corp., 405 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.N.J. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 6 (a). This statute “remov[es] from the Sherman Act’s reach, (1) export activities and (2) other commercial activities taking place abroad, unless those activities adversely affect domestic commerce, imports to the United States, or exporting activities of one…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.