Whether U.S. courts may reinterpret the Sherman Act using a discretionary ten-factor balancing test under the doctrine of prescriptive comity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Even though the application of U.S. antitrust laws to foreign conduct “can interfere with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs,” this Court has “long held that application of our antitrust laws to foreign anticompetitive conduct is nonetheless reasonable, and hence consistent with principles of prescriptive comity, insofar as they reflect a legislative effort to redress domestic antitrust injury that foreign anticompetitive conduct has caused.” F. Hoffmann-La Roche Lid. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 165 (2004). It is “well established that Congress has exercised [prescriptive] jurisdiction under the Sherman Act” to regulate “foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States,” Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 796 & n.22 (1998). The questions presented are: 1. Whether, despite this Court’s “well established” interpretation of the Sherman Act, U.S. courts may reinterpret the same text of that Act case by case using a discretionary ten-factor balancing test under the doctrine of prescriptive comity. 2. Whether a court interpreting the meaning of foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 is limited to the “face” of written legal materials, as the decision below held, or may also consider evidence as to how foreign law is implemented and enforced that would be relevant to the interpretive inquiry in the foreign legal system.