Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan American World Airways

607 F. Supp. 324 (1985)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan American World Airways

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
607 F. Supp. 324 (1985)

Facts

Laker Airways Ltd. (plaintiff) was a British airline carrier that became insolvent allegedly due to the tortious and collusive conduct of Pan American World Airways and various other American, British, Swiss, German, Dutch, and Belgian airline companies (the conspirators) (defendants). Laker Airways filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the conspirators, claiming, among other things, that the conspirators had violated antitrust laws by pressuring Laker Airways’ lenders, Midland Bank (Midland) and Samuel Montagu & Co. Ltd. (Montagu) (the lenders) to deny financing that Laker Airways needed to stay in business. The case was consolidated with subsequently filed related actions. Laker Airways did not sue Midland or Montagu, but there was an implied accusation by Laker Airways that Midland and Montagu were involved in the conspiracy. Midland’s and Montagu’s home offices were located in London, and their activities in connection with the alleged conspiracy occurred in the United Kingdom. Laker Airways served Midland at its New York branch office and Montagu at its New York representative office, which conducted no banking operations in the district, with subpoenas for documents that were maintained in London. The respective New York offices were opened after the alleged misconduct occurred. The subpoenas did not follow the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Evidence Convention) procedures. The United Kingdom passed a law stating that no persons in that country would comply with any foreign directive calling for the production of commercial records maintained in the United Kingdom. The subpoenas were issued from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Midland and Montagu motioned the court to quash the subpoenas.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brieant, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership