E&L Consulting, Ltd., is a U.S. corporation that sells lumber products in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
Doman Industries, Ltd., is a Canadian corporation that also sells lumber products, including green hem-fi r, a durable product used for homebuilding. Doman supplies more than 95 percent of the green hem-fi r for sale in the northeastern United States. In 1990, Doman contracted to sell green hem-fi r through E&L, which received monthly payments plus commissions.
In 1998, Sherwood Lumber Corp., a New York fi rm and an E&L competitor, approached E&L about a merger. The negotiations were unsuccessful. According to E&L, Sherwood and Doman then conspired to monopolize the green hemfi r market in the United States. When Doman terminated its contract with E&L, the latter fi led a suit in a federal district court against Doman, alleging violations of U.S. antitrust law.
Doman fi led for bankruptcy in a Canadian court and asked the U.S. court to dismiss E&L’s suit under the principle of comity,
among other things. What is the “principle of comity”? On what basis would it apply in this case? What would be the likely result? Discuss. [E&L Consulting, Ltd. v. Doman Industries,
Ltd., 360 F.Supp.2d 465 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)]