Washington Law Review




Plaintiffs, corporate distributors, sought treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act, alleging that defendant's acquisition of a manufacturer for which plaintiffs were distributors violated section 7 of the Clayton Act and that plaintiffs were damaged by defendant's termination of plaintiffs' distributorship contracts pursuant to the acquisition. Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that there could be no action for damages under section 4 based upon a section 7 violation, as a section 4 recovery is predicated upon an existing illegal monopoly, which is not prohibited by section 73. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendant's motion and held: A treble damage action may be maintained by the distributor of a manufacturer who was acquired in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. Julius M. Ames Co. v. Bostitch, Inc., 240 F. Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).

First Page