various reinsurance companies in the united kingdom had conspired through lloyd's of london to coerce u.s. insurers into abandoning certain policy practices that were beneficial to consumers, but costly to the reinsurers. when u.s. states (including the named plaintiff, california) filed a lawsuit alleging antitrust violations, the defendant companies raised a number of defenses, asserting that the united states lacked jurisdiction over their acts, that various statutes exempted them from liability, and that principles of comity dictated that they should not be brought before a u.s. court. the united states district court in which the case was brought accepted these arguments and dismissed the case. the court of appeals reversed the dismissal.