Carrier Corporation v. Outokumpu Oyj, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4283

Carrier and affiliates sue for Sherman Act and Tennessee Trade Practices Act violations tied to an alleged global conspiracy in ACR copper tubing; defendants include Outokumpu Oyj and its U.S. and European subsidiaries; Mueller entities settled and were dismissed; case on appeal after district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
EC decisions: 2003 industrial-tubes finding against Outokumpu entities and 2004 plumbing-tubes ruling; EC findings focus on European conduct with limited explicitly European scope.
Amended complaint alleges a World-Wide market-allocation scheme (1988–2001) that allocated U.S. Carrier business to Outokumpu and suppressed competition, inflating prices.
District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) as wholly insubstantial and lacking U.S. nexus, critiquing the complaint as “cut-and-paste” from EC decisions.
This court holds jurisdiction exists under Sherman Act effects test, declines to treat allegations as wholly insubstantial, and determines the complaint plausibly states a Sherman Act claim; personal jurisdiction over OTO and OCP found, based on alter-ego theory and Calder effects.
Case reversed as to Outokumpu Oyj, Outokumpu Copper Products Oy, Outokumpu Copper (U.S.A.), Inc., and Outokumpu Copper Franklin, Inc., and remanded for further proceedings

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint adequately alleges subject-matter jurisdiction under the Sherman Act.	Carrier contends substantial U.S. effects from foreign conduct.	Outokumpu argues lack of U.S. nexus and wholly insubstantial complaint.	Yes; jurisdiction found under the Sherman Act effects test.
Whether the complaint is time-barred by the four-year limitations period under §15b and whether fraudulent concealment tolls.	Carrier pleads fraudulent concealment with particularity and discovery later via EC findings.	Outokumpu asserts untimely concealment and insufficient pleadings.	Fraudulent concealment adequately pleaded; not time-barred at this stage.
Whether the district court properly adjudicated personal jurisdiction over OTO and OCP.	Carrier asserts alter-ego control and Calder effects support jurisdiction.	Outokumpu argues lack of direct in-forum activities.	Specific jurisdiction established for OTO and OCP on facial record; alter-ego theory supported.
Whether the complaint states a plausible Sherman Act claim against Outokumpu defendants.	Alleged global market allocation and U.S. impact plausibly indicate a conspiracy.	Arguments center on European scope; U.S. nexus disputed; pleading too broad.	Yes; complaint plausibly supports a §1 conspiracy and survives Rule 12(b)(6) at pleadings stage.

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (U.S. 1993) (Sherman Act extraterritorial reach; substantial effect required)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; must plead plausible facts)
Dayco Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 523 F.2d 389 (6th Cir. 1975) (fraudulent concealment pleading requirements; discovery and due diligence)
Campbell v. Upjohn Co., 676 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1982) (reasonableness of reliance and due diligence in fraud claims)
Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (minimum contacts and Mohasco test for jurisdiction)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (purposeful aiming; effects doctrine for in-forum harm)
In re Elec. Carbon Prods. Antitrust Litig., 333 F. Supp. 2d 303 (D.N.J. 2004) (fraudulent concealment pleading; use of EC findings for precision)
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (U.S. 1993) (Sherman Act extraterritorial reach; substantial effect required)