The role which the private litigant plays in the enforcement of the antitrust laws, either by an action to recover treble damages or to enjoin antitrust violations, is of increasing importance. As these actions become more frequent, additional problems are raised. One such problem is the use of a unilateral refusal to deal as a deterrent to the effective use of the treble damage suit by the private litigant. Two recent parallel cases have dealt with the question of allowing temporary injunctive relief where the defendant has refused to deal with a plaintiff asking for treble damages. In House of Materials, Inc. v. Simplicity Pattern Co., the Second Circuit denied injunctive relief in the above situation, whereas in Bergen Drug Co. v. Parke, Davis & Co., the Third Circuit granted the injunction pendente lite. The purpose of this comment is to examine these recent cases in the light of the interest protected and the propriety of injunctive relief. Since the two cases involve similar situations but reach different results, a close examination and comparison of their facts and a discussion of the possible implications of their holdings is required. Before analyzing the narrow question involved, it is first necessary to examine the existing law in the general area of refusals to deal, and in the particular area of the simple unilateral refusal to deal.
Unilateral Refusals to Deal as a Method of Deterring Private Antitrust Litigants: A Legitimate Method of Economic Coercion?,
42 Neb. L. Rev. 825
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol42/iss4/7