Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio-CBBCC v. Applied Industrial Materials Corp.
887 F. Supp. 2d 9
D.D.C.2012Background
- ITC imposed import duties on ferrosilicon in the early 1990s after an anti-dumping petition.
- Domestic U.S. producers’ price fixing convictions (1995–1997) led to ITC reconsideration and reversal of duties (1999).
- Brazilian ferrosilicon producers (CBCC and related) withdrew from the U.S. market due to duties; plaintiffs sue in 2001 against U.S. producers CC Metals, Elkem, AIMCOR.
- Plaintiffs allege conspiratorial filing of fraudulent ITC petitions in violation of Sherman Act §1 and RICO, seeking damages for exclusion from the U.S. market.
- District court previously dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, which this case now revisits after appellate proceedings establishing coconspirator-based jurisdiction under DC law.
- ITC later found that its original determination was based on fraud by petitioners and domestic producers, sustaining the theory of conspiratorial influence on the ITC decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction via conspiracy including ITC petition fraud | Plaintiffs—AIMCOR, Elkem, CC Metals—rely on coconspirator jurisdiction through the ITC petitioners. | Defendants contend no sufficient in-forum contacts or fraud-based basis for jurisdiction. | Denied; court upholds personal jurisdiction through coconspirator theory and ITC findings. |
| Statute of limitations accrual for antitrust and RICO | Damages accrued in 1999 when ITC decision was finally adverse to defendants. | accrual in 1994 with four-year limitation; suit filed 2001 is time-barred. | Not barred; accrual occurred in 1999, within four-year window. |
| Antitrust standing | Plaintiffs suffer antitrust injury from exclusion from U.S. market. | The ITC’s actions caused injury, not defendants directly; lack of direct causation. | Plaintiffs have standing to pursue antitrust claims. |
| RICO standing and pattern of activity | Conspiracy to fix prices and file fraudulent ITC petitions constitutes RICO pattern injuring plaintiffs. | No adequate pattern or causation to support RICO claim. | RICO claims survive; court finds a cognizable pattern and injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (accrual and damages timing in antitrust actions)
- Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) (four-year limitations applied to antitrust and related claims)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000) (RICO statute limitations are injury-focused accrual)
- FC Inv. Grp. v. IFX Markets, Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (requires pleading conspiracy with overt acts; coconspirator jurisdiction)
- Midland Export, Ltd. v. Elkem Holding, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 163 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (illustrates accrual concerns when ITC action is pivotal)