Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that Defendants — Haitian government officials and multinational corporations — conspired to fix the prices of remittances and telephone calls from the United States to Haiti. Defendants allegedly agreed to produce official instruments (a Presidential Order and two Circulars of the Bank of the Republic of Haiti) to disguise their agreement as a tax for domestic education programs. Plaintiffs brought a price-fixing claim under the Sherman Act and fifteen related state-law claims. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims based on (1) the act of state doctrine and (2) in the alternative, as to some Defendants, forum non conveniens. We hold that the act of state doctrine does not bar adjudication of a claim merely because that claim turns on the “propriety” of the official acts of a foreign sovereign. Instead, the doctrine forecloses a claim only if it would require a court to declare that an official act of a foreign sovereign is invalid, i.e., to deny the act legal effect. W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Env’t Tectonics Corp., Int’l, 493 U.S. 400 (1990). Here, even assuming the Presidential Order and Circulars have their full purported legal effect under Haitian law, Plaintiffs’ antitrust claim under U.S. federal law remains cognizable. We therefore REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of the antitrust claim under the act of state doctrine and VACATE the dismissal of the fifteen state-law claims for reanalysis under the proper standard. We further VACATE the dismissal on the alternative grounds of forum non conveniens because the district court did not give due deference to U.S.-resident Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judge NEWMAN concurs in a separate opinion. MICHAEL PARK, C.J. Under the act of state doctrine, U.S. courts may not declare the official acts of a foreign sovereign to be invalid. But the doctrine does not bar our adjudication of whether those same acts are wrongful under a cause of action properly brought before us. See W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Env’t Tectonics Corp., Int’l, 493 U.S. 400 (1990). This case presents the question whether the act of state doctrine requires dismissal of an antitrust claim implicating official acts of the Haitian government. Plaintiffs are U.S. residents who allege that multinational corporations conspired with Haitian officials to fix the prices of remittances and telephone calls made between Plaintiffs and their contacts in Haiti. To implement the scheme, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants clothed their agreement in formal executive actions of the Haitian government. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim based on the act of state doctrine, reasoning that Plaintiffs could not bring their antitrust claim because the court would have to adjudge the “propriety” of Haiti’s official acts. We hold that the act of state doctrine does not foreclose Plaintiffs’ antitrust claim because no official act of Haiti must be deemed invalid for liability to attach under federal law. We thus reverse in part. We also vacate the district court’s dismissal of fifteen state-law claims and remand for reanalysis under the correct standard. We further vacate the court’s alternative dismissal under forum non conveniens because it did not give due deference to U.S.-resident Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Allegations Plaintiffs are U.S. residents with relatives and friends in Haiti. Defendants Caribbean Air Mail, Inc., Western Union, Unitransfer USA, Inc., Unibank, S.A., Unigestion Holding, S.A., and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (the “Corporate Defendants”) are companies that facilitate remittances and phone calls between the United States and Haiti. In addition to the Corporate Defendants, Plaintiffs brought this action against the Government of Haiti and three of its former Presidents, Michel Joseph Martelly, Jocelerme Privert, and Jovenel Moise, along with Natcom S.A., a telecommunications company partly owned by the Haitian government (the “Government Defendants”). As alleged,1 Martelly orchestrated a far-reaching price-fixing agreement with the Corporate Defendants before becoming President in 2011. The “mechanism” for implementing the agreement was a Presidential Order and two Circulars of the Bank of the Republic of Haiti that Martelly would issue after taking office. Compl. 56. The Presidential Order set a “floor price for all incoming international call[s]” at $0.23 per minute and required that $0.05 per minute be “ turned over to the Government.” Id.
60-61. Similarly, the Circulars “memorialized” Defendants’ agreement to add a $1.50 fee to remittances of food and money sent to Haiti from certain countries, including the United States. Id. 65. Under both the Presidential Order and the Circulars, the Corporate Defendants and Natcom would collect these surcharges at the source — in Plaintiffs’ case, in the United States — as a condition of eligibility to provide services. Martelly represented to the public that these policies would raise revenues to support a Haitian compulsory education program. But in fact, Plaintiffs say, no such program existed. Rather, just months after publication of the Presidential Order, “it was discovered that [$26] million in the new National Fund for Education was missing.” Id. 82. Plaintiffs assert that each Corporate Defendant retained a portion of the fees it collected rather than transmitting the full amount to the Haitian treasury. And Martelly, Privert, and Moise, during their respective terms, profited personally from the fees as well. Moreover, Plaintiffs say that the Presidential Order and Circulars ran afoul of Haitian law because “only the parliament may raise taxes and fees for the benefit of the state.” Id. 57 & n.6. As part of the scheme, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants told customers that these fees were in fact collected pursuant to a “lawful tax” for education. Id.
