The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a real estate developer seeking to build a Wegmans supermarket has adequate standing to bring an antitrust suit claiming the owner of a nearby Shop-Rite store engaged in sham litigation to prevent the entry of a competitor.
The appeals court reversed a U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruling dismissing the antitrust suit on the finding that the developer was not a competitor or participant in the supermarket arena and therefore did not sustain the sort of injury that antitrust laws were intended to prevent. The district court took too narrow a view of antitrust injury when considering the claim for attempted monopolization of the market for full-service supermarkets—those that provide amenities beyond traditional groceries, such as wine and liquor, as well as pharmacies and banks—the appeals court said in Hanover 3201 Realty v. Village Supermarkets.
