Prevent USA Corp. v. Volkswagen AG
17 F.4th 653
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- Eastern Horizon (Netherlands) and parent Prevent Group (Europe) are distressed-asset automotive suppliers; Prevent USA is a U.S. subsidiary with minimal U.S. presence.
- Prevent alleges Volkswagen ran a coordinated campaign (“Project 1”) to block Prevent’s acquisitions and impose anticompetitive restrictions; Prevent Group sued Volkswagen multiple times in German courts.
- Eastern Horizon and Prevent USA sued Volkswagen and VW Group of America in Michigan (Sherman Act §§1 & 2 and state claims), alleging Project 1 frustrated U.S. acquisition efforts and caused reputational and valuation harm.
- District court dismissed on forum non conveniens: Germany is an available, adequate forum; private/public interest factors favor Germany; Prevent USA’s forum choice merits little deference as a foreign-controlled, shell-like plaintiff.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed, emphasizing German courts’ broader reach over the conduct and that U.S. antitrust law may not redress injuries located primarily abroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy/availability of alternative forum | Germany is inadequate because it won’t apply the Sherman Act or award treble damages | Germany is available and can hear EU/German antitrust claims covering the conduct and injuries | Germany is an adequate and available forum; differences in remedies do not make it inadequate |
| Private interest factors (evidence, witnesses, costs) | U.S. forum is appropriate because some alleged injuries affected U.S. targets | Most key documents/witnesses are in Europe and in German/Portuguese; translation and travel burdens favor Germany | Private factors favor dismissal; evidence and witnesses are largely in Europe |
| Public interest factors and connection to forum | Prevent USA alleges harms to its U.S. acquisition plans and U.S. companies on VW’s list | Local interest and injuries are primarily European; Michigan has scant relation to the dispute | Public interest factors favor Germany; limited U.S. connection supports dismissal |
| Deference to plaintiff’s forum choice / applicability to antitrust claims | Antitrust claims should not be dismissed on forum non conveniens (citing Mitsui) | Prevent USA is a foreign-controlled, shell-like plaintiff; forum choice deserves little deference; forum non conveniens applies to statutory claims | Deference is limited for foreign or shell plaintiffs; forum non conveniens may be applied to Sherman Act claims; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (doctrine and factors governing forum non conveniens)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (central focus on convenience; framework for international forum non conveniens dismissals)
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (Sherman Act limits for foreign-only antitrust injuries)
- Jones v. IPX Int’l Eq. Guinea, S.A., 920 F.3d 1085 (Sixth Circuit discussion of forum non conveniens standards)
- Industrial Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 671 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. decision refusing forum non conveniens dismissal of antitrust claims; rejected by this panel)
- Howe v. Goldcorp Invs., Ltd., 946 F.2d 944 (1st Cir. view that special venue provisions do not bar international forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Cap. Currency Exch., N.V. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank PLC, 155 F.3d 603 (2d Cir. permitting forum non conveniens dismissal of Sherman Act claims)
- Estate of Thomson ex rel. Estate of Rakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357 (affirming dismissal despite alternative forum lacking jurisdiction over one defendant)