pertinent here because the foreign firm in that case did not sell to American consumers; rather, it attempted to show that the injury it incurred abroad ultimately injured American exporters, from which it purchased fewer goods for resale overseas. The district court held that, because the plaintiffs claimed injury was not an “injury to export business in the United States” within the meaning of the proviso to the FTAIA, the foreign firm did not have standing. Here, however, the alleged injury is to advertisers in the United States. Consequently, clause 1(A) rather than clause 1(B) of the FTAIA governs, and the location of the suppliers is not relevant to whether the plaintiff has alleged an effect upon U.S. domestic or import commerce. See Hartford, 509 U.S. at 796, 113 S.Ct. 2891 (<HOLDING>). We now turn to C&W’s primary argument,
holding the court of appeals had subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding a defendants waiver of appellate rights in a plea agreement holding court had subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff alleged conspiracy among foreign reinsurance companies had affected us purchasers of reinsurance holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a commonlaw wrongful discharge claim holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement