Concluding that the facts alleged for the breach of contract claim in the original complaint were similar to those pled in the claim for tortious interference in the amended complaint, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss finding that defendant was provided sufficient notice of the tortious interference claim to relate back to the original complaint.

Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.