## Facts

- American Banana Company, an Alabama corporation, sought to develop a banana plantation and related facilities, including a railroad, in territory under Panamanian sovereignty near the Costa Rica border.
- United Fruit Company, a New Jersey corporation dominant in the banana trade, allegedly demanded that American Banana join a scheme to monopolize the banana trade.
- After American Banana refused, United Fruit allegedly procured Costa Rican soldiers to invade the area where American Banana’s plantation and railroad were located and to seize and hold them, halting operations.
- United Fruit allegedly influenced Costa Rican officials so that Costa Rican legal processes were used to destroy American Banana’s property and business.
- A Costa Rican court entered judgment declaring a third party (Astúa) the owner of the plantation; Astúa then conveyed the property to United Fruit.
- American Banana sought treble damages under § 7 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the banana trade.
- The complaint did not allege that the foreign seizures or judicial actions were unlawful under Costa Rican or Panamanian law.
- The federal trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the Second Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sherman Act applies to acts carried out in foreign countries, even if done by U.S. citizens and injuring a U.S. corporation.
2. Whether U.S. courts may treat as wrongful under U.S. law foreign governmental acts (military and judicial) taken within a foreign sovereign’s territory, allegedly procured by a private U.S. corporation.
3. Whether an agreement formed in the United States to carry out acts abroad brings the foreign acts within the Sherman Act when the acts are permitted by the local law where performed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The Court held that the Sherman Act does not extend to acts done in foreign countries, even if performed by U.S. citizens and harmful to other U.S. citizens.
- The Court treated the conduct of Costa Rican soldiers and officials in their own territory as acts of the foreign sovereign that U.S. courts will not condemn as wrongful under U.S. law.
- The Court rejected the theory that a domestic conspiracy automatically makes foreign acts unlawful under U.S. law when those acts are permitted by the law of the place where they occur.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, the legality of conduct is determined by the law of the place where the conduct occurs.
- Federal statutes are generally construed to operate only within the territorial jurisdiction of the lawmaker, absent a clear indication to the contrary.
- Acts of foreign soldiers and officials within their own territory are attributed to the foreign sovereign, and U.S. courts will not declare such sovereign acts wrongful under U.S. law in a private damages action.
- A conspiracy formed in the United States to commit acts in another jurisdiction does not, by itself, render those foreign acts unlawful under U.S. law if local law permits them.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Sherman Act did not provide a damages remedy for alleged monopolizing conduct implemented through seizures and judicial proceedings abroad, because the challenged acts occurred in foreign jurisdictions and involved foreign sovereign action that U.S. courts would not treat as unlawful under U.S. law.


Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909)