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.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]