Scribd
Upload
110 views1 page

Jurisdiction To Hear The Case Because It Involved Acts That Occurred

Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America involved a lawsuit where Timberlane Lumber Co. sued Bank of America for violating anti-trust laws by conspiring with other Honduran timber companies financed by the bank to drive Timberlane out of business in Honduras. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the appellate court remanded and established a three-part test for determining if US anti-trust laws can apply to extraterritorial acts. On remand, the court applied the three-part test and ultimately dismissed the case again, finding the conspiracy was aimed at Honduran commerce and had a negligible effect on US commerce.

Uploaded by

Diane Cabral Calangi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
110 views1 page

Jurisdiction To Hear The Case Because It Involved Acts That Occurred

Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America involved a lawsuit where Timberlane Lumber Co. sued Bank of America for violating anti-trust laws by conspiring with other Honduran timber companies financed by the bank to drive Timberlane out of business in Honduras. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the appellate court remanded and established a three-part test for determining if US anti-trust laws can apply to extraterritorial acts. On remand, the court applied the three-part test and ultimately dismissed the case again, finding the conspiracy was aimed at Honduran commerce and had a negligible effect on US commerce.

Uploaded by

Diane Cabral Calangi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Timberlane Lumber Co. v.

Bank of America
549 F.2d 597 (1976)

 Timberlane bought some assets in Honduras to start harvesting timber for


import into the US.
 Some of the other Honduran timber companies, (who were financed by Bank of
America), conspired against Timberlane in order to drive them out of business.
 Timberlane sued Bank of America in the US for violating anti-trust laws.
 The Trial Court dismissed the case. Timberlane appealed.
o Thee Trial Court found that they did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to hear the case because it involved acts that occurred
outside of US territory.
 The Appellate Court found they had jurisdiction and remanded the case.
o The Appellate Court found there should be a three part test to determine
if US anti-trust laws can reach an extraterritorial act:
 Did the alleged act result in some effect on American foreign
commerce?
 Was the effect large enough to present a cognizable injury to the
plaintiff?
 Are the interests of the US sufficiently strong to justify an
assertion of extraterritorial authority?
o In this case, the Court found that it was reasonable to conclude that:
 The purpose of the Honduran conspiracy was to affect the export
of lumber to the US,
 The magnitude of the conspiracy was sufficient to be a civil
violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
 That even though some of the defendants were Honduran, and the
acts took place in Honduras, there was no conflict of laws or
policy with the Honduran government, so it was ok to claim
jurisdiction.
 On remand, the Court looked at the three-part test, and found that there was not
enough to claim jurisdiction. So the case was dismissed.
o The Court found that:
 The purpose of the conspiracy was to effect Honduran commerce,
not US commerce.
 The conspiracy had a negligible effect on US commerce.
 There were conflicts with Honduran law.

You might also like