About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 Int'l Bus. Law. 133 (1975)
Foreign Court and the National Interest, the Effect of Foreign Judgments on Activities in Canada

handle is hein.journals/ibl3 and id is 143 raw text is: International Business Lawyer 1975, VoL 3(0) Printed in Great Britain Foreign Court and the National Interest, The Effect of Foreign Judgments on Activities in Canada by Gordon F. Henderson, Q.C., Solicitor, Canada The upsurge of Canadian Nationalism in recent years has focused attention on the areas of culture and economics, with special emphasis on the ownership and control of resources and industry. The widespread impact on our economy of multinational, foreign-owned, corporations has been realized. It is not always realized, however, to what extent foreign laws and regulations have an impact on companies doing business in Canada. This impact can on occasion be very important, especially when it conflicts with or limits Canada's national or regional objectives. Because of the close proximity of the United States, the extraterritorial effect of U.S. decisions has perhaps the most far reaching effects upon Canadian business. In advising Canadian companies which are subsidiaries of U.S. firms, Canadian practioners must have regard not only to domestic Canadian law applicable to the problem, but must also realize that the course of conduct decided upon would also have to be acceptable in terms of U.S. antitrust considerations. It is apparent from the case of Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research Inc. 239 F. Supp. 51, 388 F. 2d 25, 395 U.S. 100 that unless the Canadian law requires a course of conduct in this country, the United States Court may find that the Canadian activity offends antitrust law of the U.S.A. Accordingly, an activity carried out in Canada by the United States company, or its Canadian subsidiary, may be perfectly legal in Canada giving rise to no criminal nor civil right against the company, can be regarded in the United States by the U.S. Court to be contrary to the antitrust laws of that country. This can give rise to the claim for treble damages against the U.S. company as the parent of the Canadian company. The United States has moved a long way from the position stated by the Chief Justice of the United States (Holmes, C. J.) in American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. (1909) 213 U.S. 457. The general and most universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the laws of the court where the act is done.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most