Global corporates can no longer be sued in the US for triple damages for losses caused purely by cartels in operation in other countries, after the US Supreme Court overruled a controversial Washington DC Court of Appeals decision in a vitamin price-fixing case last week.

America’s highest court ruled that where losses that occur elsewhere on the globe are independent of cartel activity in the US, foreign claimants can no longer bring actions in the US courts.


However, the Supreme Court expressly left open the question of whether US courts would hear cases where no losses would have been suffered abroad ‘but for’ a price cartel in the US - for example, if a US cartel prevented foreign purchasers from buying easily transportable goods cheaply in the US instead of their home country.


The Supreme Court said it could not rule on this issue because the matter had not been raised in the Court of Appeals.


Michael Sanders, a litigation partner at City firm Linklaters, said: ‘It surprises me that the "but for" argument wasn’t run in the Court of Appeals. But it is very likely that the plaintiffs will go back to the Court of Appeals with this argument - given that the sums of money involved and the matters of principle riding on it are immense.


‘The Supreme Court has given as clear an indication as it can that there is another avenue to explore, and it will be explored - there is so much at stake.’


Jettie Van Caenegem, vice-chairwoman of the European Company Lawyers Association and director of legal affairs at UCB SA, one of the defendants in the case, said: ‘This was a good result consistent with the principles of comity that there should not be an ever-increasing expansion of the reach of American courts.’


Meanwhile, national firm Irwin Mitchell announced it was joining US firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll in launching a series of claims in the UK on behalf of clients claiming to be victims of the vitamins cartel.