This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

This was an antitrust action by two American purchasers of extruded rubber thread. Ps alleged that various foreign manufacturers and distributors of the thread conspired to restrain trade and fix prices in the U.S. Ds filed motions to dismiss. Hevealfil (D) was one of the defendants, and they were a corporation operating out of Malaysia. Other corporations that were sued as defendants operated out of Malaysia and Thailand. Ds filed a number of motions to dismiss based on jurisdiction and venue. The court found that there was jurisdiction based on the worldwide service authorized under the Clayton act (Federal Antitrust Law). Ds then argued that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.