USCA1 Opinion

March 1, 1995
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1711
SAS OF PUERTO RICO, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________

ERRATA SHEET
ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on February 21, 1995, is amen

as follows:

On page 8, line 18, the word "pendant" should be "supplemental

On

page 10, note 2,

"Illinois Br
___________
Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). Compare Hanover Shoe, Inc.
___
________
_______ ___________________
United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968).".
_______________________
Page 10, note
"Brunswick".

4,

the footnote should

line

two

of

note,

read:

"Brunswich"

should

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1711
SAS OF PUERTO RICO, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
_____________
and Boyle,* Senior District Judge.
_____________________
____________________

Laurence Z. Shiekman with whom M. Duncan Grant, Frank

______________________
_________________
_______
Rapoport, Michael A. Ceramella and Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz were
________
____________________
__________________________
brief for appellant.
Philip J. Mause with whom Joaquin A. Marquez and Drinker Biddle
_______________
__________________
______________
Reath were on brief for appellee.
_____
____________________
February 21, 1995
____________________
____________________
*Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

BOUDIN,

Circuit Judge.
______________

SAS

("SAS"), brought an antitrust

in Delaware
After

the

Puerto

Rico, the

dismiss

on the

ground

"antitrust injury."

Rico,

Inc.

Telephone Company ("PRTC").

transferred

district

Puerto

suit in federal district court

against Puerto Rico

suit was

of

to the

district

court granted

that SAS

court in

PRTC's motion

did not

to

adequately assert

We agree and affirm.

I.

In

April

1993

SAS

Delaware district court.

filed its

original

After the case was

complaint

in

transferred to

Puerto Rico, the site of most of the events that underlie the
case,

an amended

complaint was

filed.

Since the

amended

complaint was later dismissed on the pleadings, we accept the

allegations as true

for purposes of this

appeal.

Berkovitz
_________

What

follows is

v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 540 (1988).

_____________
SAS's version

of the facts, supplemented

by information not

reasonably disputable.
PRTC is
percent

of

operates

a Delaware

corporation that provides

the telephone

over 95 percent of

Although once a subsidiary

was

service

within

about 90

Puerto Rico

the pay phones

and

in Puerto Rico.

of ITT, all of the

stock of PRTC

acquired about 20 years ago by the Puerto Rico Telephone

Authority
government

("the

Authority"),

instrumentality

of

public
the

corporation

Commonwealth.

and
The

Authority

also

owns

the

stock

of

the

Puerto

Rico

-2-2-

Communications Corporation ("PRCC") which

provides telephone

service and operates pay phones in those areas of Puerto Rico

not served by PRTC.

(PRTC's brief says that it and PRCC have

now merged.)
Long distance
mainland was

service between Puerto Rico

for some years

interconnecting on the
the

Federal

facilitate
traffic.1
Authority

To

Commission

for

Puerto

participate

in this

subsidiary

took

Rico's
new

long

steps

to

distance

environment,

the

created yet another wholly owned subsidiary called

Telfonica Larga Distancia ("TLD").

adopted

an ITT

mainland with AT&T, but in the 1980's

Communications
competition

provided by

and the U.S.

legislation designed

In 1990, the Commonwealth

to facilitate

the Authority's

sale of TLD's stock.

After its formation, TLD

rapidly became the carrier for

about 80 percent

of the long

from pay phones in

distance telephone calls

Puerto Rico.

Although the

made

mechanics are

not described in the complaint, they can readily be inferred.

Pay phones are
property

by

located
lobby;

on

commonly located on
the local

telephone

private property

in the

latter

streets or other
company

such as

instance, the

in

or

public

they may

a store

instrument is

be

or hotel
usually

____________________
1E.g., All America Cables & Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 736 F.2d
____ ________________________________
___
752 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Common Carrier Facilities Off of the
______________________________________
Island of Puerto Rico, 2 F.C.C.R. 6600 (1987), on recons.,
______________________
__________
FCC 92-529 (1992).
-3-3-

(although

not

always)

furnished

by

the

local

telephone

company by arrangement with the property owner.

As
three

long distance
decades,

competition

developed over

telephone subscribers

able to select the long

have

the past

ordinarily been

distance carrier through which their

calls

would be

routed.

A small

phones

make it

easy for

the

preferred long
but

in

many

percentage of

caller to

select his

distance carrier by pushing

pay

phones, a

modern pay

a single button;

pre-designated

long

carrier automatically receives the traffic unless the

"dials"

or her

distance
caller

a complex access code to reach another long distance

carrier.
According to

the complaint, in Puerto Rico

pay phones used (or

were connected through) older technology

that prevented a caller from using a long

other

than the pre-designated

means of calling
different

an operator and

asking to

most of the long

be routed to

The pre-designated carrier

is normally selected by the

company or the premises owner.

carry

distance carrier--

one--except by the cumbersome

long distance carrier.

for a pay phone

many of the

local telephone

In short order TLD began

distance calls from

to

Puerto Rico pay

phones.
SAS was formed as
the

hope

of

equipment and

a Puerto Rico corporation in

contracting

with

PRTC

and

maintain service at Puerto

-4-4-

PRCC to

1991 in
upgrade

Rico's pay phones.

The

complaint explains

that "[t]he

principals of

SAS were

experienced in the installation and operation of `intelligent

paystations'

and,

improving the pay

Islands."

fact,

had

phone system in

Such intelligent

effectively
callers

in

computers,

(e.g., speed
____

successfully

assisted in

the United States

pay phones, embodying

can

provide various

dialing)

and to

Virgin
what are

advantages

the local

to

telephone

company (e.g., remote diagnosis of failure).

____
The intelligent pay phones

to be supplied by SAS

also increase competition among

expected
local

to negotiate with

telephone

secure the

company

long distance carriers.

such carriers, as
or premises

most favorable

would

terms

agent for the

owner,

for the

SAS

presumably to

position of

assigned long distance carrier at the pay phone.

pre-

In addition

the intelligent pay phone would greatly simplify the

task of

the caller who desired to route his or her own call through a
long distance carrier other than the pre-assigned carrier.
On

January 31, 1992, after "substantial negotiation and

investment

of considerable

"agency agreement"
maintain
agreement

with both

pay telephones

time and

money," SAS

PRTC and PRCC

in Puerto

Rico.

signed an

to provide
As to

and

PRTC, the

provided for SAS to act as PRTC's agent to upgrade

minimum of

1,500

of PRTC's

pay

phones at

business centers.

The agreement included

to negotiate

the

with

premises owner

tourist

and

authority for SAS

to

alter

the

pre-

-5-5-

designated

long

phones to

distance carrier

for

the

be installed on the premises.

intelligent pay

SAS hoped to obtain

better terms from such carriers through competition.

Ten days
reached

an

international

after the January 31

agreement

with

subsidiary of

sell it control of TLD.

Part

position as the pre-designated

of Puerto Rico's pay phones.
the

SAS-PRTC agreement.

agreement, the Authority

Telefonica
Spain's

de

Espana,

the

telephone company,

to

of the value of TLD lay in its

long distance carrier at most
This position was threatened by

According

to the

complaint, PRTC

thereafter "engaged in a course of conduct designed to delay,

disrupt and derail the

installation of the 1,500 intelligent

paystations in Puerto Rico."

The

complaint does

not

describe

this conduct

beyond

asserting generally that PRTC failed to carry out unspecified

obligations under
SAS.

the contract

On June 18,

modifications

1992, SAS

in

the

thereafter PRTC told SAS

while making new

agreed with PRTC

original

agreement

demands on
and PRCC

and

to

shortly

to proceed with installation.

SAS

then obtained a $500,000 line of credit and began to purchase

the new pay phone

equipment.

to stop operations.

In October 1992

PRTC told SAS

More negotiations followed and a

second

contract revision followed, but after further steps by SAS to

implement the program, SAS was again instructed to halt work.

-6-6-

In
district

April

1993, SAS

began the

court in Delaware,

The complaint

(as later

present lawsuit

PRTC's state

amended) says

in the

of incorporation.

that after

the case

began, PRTC in late 1993 or early 1994 sought bids to replace

some

or all

of the

pay phones

that SAS had

contracted to

replace; PRTC

later

accepted

thereafter contracted for

one

pay phones with

manufacturers or suppliers who had

SAS when the latter

of the

bids;

and

PRTC

some of the

same

agreed to supply them

was seeking to fulfill its

to

own contract

with PRTC.
The complaint
the acts

alleges, in its first

described constituted monopolization

monopolization

of two

restrain trade in the

Sherman Act.
monopoly

three counts, that

different markets

and attempted

and conspiracy

same markets, all in violation

15 U.S.C.

1-2.

PRTC was alleged

to

of the
to have

power in "the market for the provision of pay phone

service in Puerto Rico"; and PRTC, PRCC

and TLD as a "single

economic entity"

such

market for the

were alleged

to have

provision of long

power in

distance service from

"the
pay

phones in Puerto Rico."

In the
was

antitrust conspiracy count Telefonica

named as a co-conspirator.

already described,

In addition

SAS alleged that PRTC

de Espana

to the conduct

had discussed with

Telefonica de Espana the impact that the SAS upgrading of pay

phones would have and

that PRTC had impeded and

-7-7-

delayed the

agreement with SAS in order to avoid an adverse impact on the

value of TLD.
Additional
fraud, breach
contracts

counts of
of contract,

between

stations.

the

On

SAS

the

complaint charged

and

and

PRTC with

tortious interference

makers

or

antitrust counts,

suppliers

with

of

the complaint

pay

sought

injunctive relief, treble damages and attorney's fees; on the

non-federal

counts,

attorney's fees.

it asked

for compensatory

damages and

In the injunctive relief request, SAS asked

that PRTC be required to complete its contract with SAS.

After the transfer to Puerto Rico, SAS of Puerto Rico v.
__________________
Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 833 F.
_____________________
moved to dismiss the
was protected
Brown,
_____

antitrust
that

341

doctrine, see
___
in the

alleged.

from damage

that it
Parker v.
______

alternative, that
PRTC also contended

liability for

antitrust

the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 15

34-36.
the

(1943), or,

shielded

violations by

1994,

state action

injury had not been

it was

U.S.C.

antitrust claims on the ground

by the

317 U.S.

Supp. 450 (D. Del. 1993), PRTC

district

statutory arguments

In an
court

opinion and

rejected the

but dismissed

lack of antitrust injury.

order entered May

state

the antitrust

action

9,
and

claims for

Having
the antitrust

found that SAS had failed to state a claim under

laws, the district court

supplemental jurisdiction

under state

declined to exercise
law as to

the fraud,

-8-8-

contract and tortious interference

1367.
this

An order

was entered dismissing

appeal followed.

antitrust injury

claims.

See 28
___

U.S.C.

the complaint,

and

Because we agree with the position on

taken in

the district court's

confine our discussion to that issue.

opinion, we

-9-9-

II.
Despite
largely

the

its

statutory

handiwork

of

framework,
federal

antitrust

judges

and

enforcers, and the resulting case law offers much to

law

is

antitrust
admire.

The
is

corner of antitrust law with which we are concerned here

an exception.

As one

courts have never

commentator

has observed,

"the

been able to create an intelligible theory

of private antitrust standing capable of being applied across

the full

range of potential

Antitrust Policy
_________________

543

cases."

(1994).

H.
Cf.
___

Hovenkamp, Federal
_______
Associated General
___________________

Contractors v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 536 (1983) (no black

___________
__________
letter rule).
The underlying

problem is not unique

Common law tort claims have

rubrics
remotely

(e.g.,
____

proximate

to antitrust law.

been limited by various slippery

cause),

so

that

not

everyone

harmed by a violation is entitled to recover.

From

the outset, federal antitrust courts have devised counterpart

limitations under various headings (e.g., standing, antitrust
____
injury)

and through

restrictions
purchasers),

on

a variety
suits

metaphors

by
(e.g.,
____

"target area"), abstractions

and multi-factor tests.
459 U.S. 519;

of subordinate

rules (e.g.,
____

stockholders

or

"inextricably

intertwined,"

(direct versus remote

indirect

injury),

See Associated General Contractors,

___ _______________________________

Sullivan v.
________

Tagliabue, 25 F.3d
_________

1994).

-10-

43 (1st

Cir.

-10-

One reason for the confusion in

courts

sometimes have difficulty,

antitrust cases is that

well justified in certain

cases, in separating standing or antitrust injury issues from

two other

problems:

whether

violation at all, and whether

injury

causally (in

challenged conduct.
different concept:
plaintiff has

the

there has

antitrust

the plaintiff has suffered any

"but for"

Standing

been an

sense)

related to

the

or antitrust injury involves a

even where

violation exists

and

been damaged by it, the courts--for reasons of

prudence--have sought

to limit the right

of private parties

to sue for damages or injunctions.

The prudential
variety of situations
been based
complex

on fear

litigation.2

concerns, however, are multiple, and the

endless.

One

set of limitations

of duplicative recovery
Another

is

has

and excessively

concerned

with

the

remoteness of the injury and the speculative character of the

injury

or

the

connection.3

unwillingness to award antitrust

Another

set

reflects

an

damages to one who suffered

from pro-competitive

or irrelevant

effects of an

otherwise

____________________
2Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977).
___________________
________
Compare Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392
_______ ___________________
________________________
U.S. 481 (1968).
3Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S. at 543; Hawaii
______________________________
______
v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. 251, 262-63 n.14 (1972).
________________
-11-11-

anticompetitive
overlap;

and

transaction.4
the

list

surprising that no
best

antitrust

is

These
not

elements

exhaustive.

simple rule has emerged

plaintiff

and

deciding

sometimes
It

is

not

for choosing the

when

second-best

plaintiffs should be barred.

Nevertheless,
standing

cases that

there
offer

are

patterns

in

the

considerable guidance.

antitrust
One

of

those patterns

involves the supplier who

________

suffers because an

antitrust violation curtails a business that

have purchased from the supplier.
(including an
have

employee who

suffered

violation

"antitrust

and

causal

would otherwise

In general such a supplier

supplies labor) is
injury";

harm

to

held not

to

may

while there

the

supplier,

the

be

failed

business is the immediate victim and the preferred plaintiff.

II P. Areeda

& H. Hovenkamp,

Antitrust Law
_____________

375

(rev. ed.

1995) (collecting numerous cases).

This is not because suppliers are automatically improper
antitrust

plaintiffs; a

victimized
lowered

by a

seller

may well

price-fixing ring

the market price:

have

a claim

if

composed of

buyers that

a case the

seller is a

in such

participant in the very market where competition is impaired.

But if the supplier's customer fails because of an
________

antitrust

violation,

antitrust

usually

the

conduct

was

deemed

an

____________________
4Cargill v. Montfort of Colorado, 479 U.S. 104 (1986);
_______
____________________
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477
________________
________________________
(1977).
-12-12-

violation

because

of the

threat to

the customer,

not the

supplier.
Here,
injured

the situation is not quite parallel:

because

violation by
the

course

its customer

a third party;
of

its

failed

to an

antitrust

rather, the customer

(PRTC) in

own violation

agreement to use SAS as a supplier.

a part in an

allegedly

breached

violation because

posed

other potential
_____

happenstance supplier

of

the anticompetitive

plaintiffs,

to a

its

But if the breach played

antitrust violation, the conduct itself

antitrust
to

due

SAS was not

not SAS.

customer felled by

was an
threat
Like the

a violation,

SAS was coincidentally involved.

SAS's complaint

alleged that

threatened harm to competition

provision

of

pay

provision

of long

phone

PRTC's conduct

in two different markets: the

service

distance

harmed or

in

Puerto

service from

Assuming arguendo that either or

________

Rico and

such pay

both is a proper

the

phones.
"relevant

market" for antitrust purposes, Spectrum Sports v. McQuillan,

_______________
_________
113

S.

plaintiff

Ct.
is

884,
a

threatened market

892 (1993),
customer
or a

who

the

presumptively

obtains

competitor who

"proper"

services
seeks to

in

the

serve that

market.

Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S. at 538-39.

_______________________________

SAS is not suing in either capacity.

SAS was not a
pay phone in

premises owner aiming to obtain

its hotel or restaurant, or a

a better

caller who might

-13-13-

use such a pay

phone for ordinary or long

Nor

was SAS a competitor

its

pay phones

PRTC;

SAS' aim

Finally, despite
in

the

in

become, a long

seeking access to

competition with

was to supply

such phones

that SAS

distance carrier who

the network for

the primary

some vague allusions in

complaint suggests

distance service.

was,

provider,

to or

for PRTC.

its brief, nothing

or was

about to

might be benefitted

by

easier customer access.

SAS argues that the district court failed to give it the
benefit

of a favorable reading of its complaint, and that it

is entitled to such a reading.

the

district court

chose

It says, in particular, that

to characterize

the

wrong as

simple contract

claim rather than viewing it

antitrust claim

as well.

misconduct can be

Certainly,

the gravamen of

single plaintiff.

an individual

act of

more than one wrong

Not every antitrust

case is simply a contract

as a potential

claim in a

claim masquerading as a

to a

contract
candidate

for treble damages.

But

the

problem

here

is

not

that

plaintiff

automatically limited to one cause of action.

conduct

through

a plan to broaden access--is wrongful as to SAS only

_________

as

involved--PRTC's

It is that the

central

insofar as

here

is

failing

it may be a common (or civil) law wrong.

the same

conduct

violation does not

is also
____

an antitrust

to

carry

Insofar

violation, that

infringe any interest of SAS protected by

-14-14-

the

antitrust laws.

district

This

court meant in

is almost certainly
saying that SAS's

one for breach of contract.

all that the

claim was really

If competitors and

consumers are favored

plaintiffs in

antitrust cases, the list

of those presumptively

is far longer.

of those

injured,

but are

"employees

of

landlords, and
554.

The list
usually

the

who may be

denied standing

violator,

and

disfavored
derivatively

to sue

includes

stockholders, creditors,

employees of victims."

Hovenkamp, supra, at
_________ _____

It is hardly surprising to afford similar treatment to

an incidentally injured supplier to a victim or, as here, the

supplier to
not mean
shown.
The

a supposed

violator.

always; there

can

But

"presumptively" does

be exceptions,

for good

See generally Sullivan, 25 F.3d at 49.

_____________ ________
most obvious

reason for

conferring standing

second-best plaintiff

is that,

in some general

cases,

no first

best

there

may be

ability to sue.
at 542.
market

cause

plaintiffs,

category of
incentive or

Cf. Associated General Contractors, 459 U.S.

___ ______________________________

That is hardly likely here:

injury

with the

on a

alleged

above all,

by

SAS

those threatened by the

include

long distance

various

potential

carriers, who

should

have ample incentive and ability to challenge violations that

foreclose their access to
reason for stretching to

customers.

If there is

any other

confer standing in this case

-15-15-

on an

incidentally connected plaintiff like

SAS, it does not occur

to us.
We have concerned ourselves
question

whether

SAS is

market threatened by

thus far primarily with the

competitor or

consumer

the alleged violation or

protectable interest under the antitrust law.

second

element in

against

SAS in

reasons

for

the antitrust

this case.

limiting

character of

cases,

like

threatened.
At

one,

if

violation
PRTC had or

one

the

where no

of the

speculative

relationship between

This concern may operate

blush it

may

duplicative

violation it

seem
was,

profits it might have

contract.

that works

even in

recovery

is

Sullivan, 25 F.3d at 52.

________

first

violation,
whatever

this

concerns

injury or the

the violation and injury.

But there is a

already noted,

standing

either the

has any other

standing cases

As

in the

But

more

carefully

as if
clearly

antitrust

deprived SAS

of

made by carrying through the

identifying

raises substantial doubts.

assumed some

PRTC's

the

supposed

Assuming arguendo that

________

duty under the

antitrust laws

to

upgrade

its pay phones,

that duty is

it is not clear

that the breach of

meaningfully connected to the

failure to carry

through the contract with SAS.

After all,

supposing that the antitrust

PRTC

a duty to upgrade,

the

upgrading be done by

they certainly do
SAS or any

laws impose on
not require that

other specific vendor.

-16-16-

SAS would have been no less damaged if PRTC

contract

had breached the

but installed improved pay phones of its own on the

same timetable, thereby

enhancing long distance competition.

Conversely, once SAS got the contract and PRTC then allegedly
breached

it, SAS

faced

injury--but the

injury would

have

existed even if no antitrust violation arose from the failure

to upgrade.

Thus,

the connection here

between "antitrust"

and "injury" is suspect in more ways than one.

It remains
decision

to say

something about the

Supreme Court's

in Blue Shield v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982), on

___________
________

which SAS relies heavily

throughout its brief.

There,

by a

five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court held that a consumer

of health

services could

sue

under the

antitrust laws

to

redress a supposed conspiracy, between her insurance plan and

Virginia

psychiatrists,

to

receiving

compensation under

exclude
the

psychologists

plan.

Although not

from
the

immediate target of the supposed boycott, McCready herself--a

plan beneficiary

who had used a psychologist and been denied

reimbursement--was held

to have standing under the antitrust

laws.
In language much stressed by SAS, the Supreme Court said
that McCready's injury "was inextricably intertwined with the
injury

the conspirators sought

and the psychotherapy market."

also useful to

to inflict

on psychologists

457 U.S. at 484.

McCready is
________

SAS for a larger reason, namely,

that it may

-17-17-

be

an instance in which standing was extended to a plaintiff

who

was

boycott

only

derivatively

directed against

psychiatrists.
which

the

But

injured, there

psychologists

McCready can also

________

plaintiff was

by

an

for the

benefit of

be read as a

purchaser

in the

alleged

very

case in
market

directly distorted

by the antitrust violation,

see Areeda &

___

Hovenkamp, supra,
_____

364f, something that cannot even arguably

be said of SAS.
Thus,

the

present case
language

only

real

is the very

of the former.

link between

McCready
________

and

the

general "inextricably intertwined"

It is doubtful that this language--

if taken as physical image--was ever intended as a legal test

of standing.
such a test

Quite apart from

difficulties in application,

would certainly be very hard to

square with the

longstanding limitations on claims by stockholders, employees

and even

indirect purchasers.

Nothing

in McCready suggests
________

that it intended to overrule those limitations even though it

would be

very easy to describe such injuries as inextricably

intertwined in the ordinary suggestive sense of the phrase

the

In all

events, the

phrase

as

Contractors, saying
___________
this

case

Union

was

Supreme Court

legal conclusion

simply reinterpreted

in

Associated General
___________________

(after a reference to the

[Associated General Contractors],

________________________________
neither

consumer

nor

phrase):

"In

however, the

competitor

in

the

[restrained] market

. . . ."

459 U.S. at 539.

It did the

-18-18-

same

thing

more

Petroleum Co.,
______________

recently
495

U.S.

in

Atlantic Richfield
___________________

328,

345

"inextricably intertwined" because

(1990)

v.

USA
___

(injury

not

competitor not injured by

"the anticompetitive effects" of the challenged conduct).

_______________
do

not think

that

anything more

need

be said

We

about

the

matter.
III.
Having
may

have

assumed throughout
occurred,

assumption

is

"essential

facilities"

self-executing
existence

very

it

is

much

formula.5

of causation

that an

prudent
open

to

to

antitrust violation
stress

debate;

doctrine is

something

We

also

have

of harm "in

that

the

this

purported

less than
supposed

fact", see
___

a
the

Sullivan v.
________

NFL,
___

34 F.3d

suggested at

1091, 1103
the end of

question exists whether

(1st Cir.

1994); but

for reasons

our standing discussion,

the alleged "antitrust

when more carefully defined--can

a serious

violation"--

be described as the but-for

cause of the harm suffered by SAS.

In

all

events,

antitrust violation,

even

where there

is

not every injured party

claim under the antitrust

laws.

harm-causing
is entitled to

In this case,

supposing an

antitrust violation occurred, it was not a violation directed

against SAS and SAS is not an appropriate plaintiff to obtain
____________________
5See generally Interface Group, Inc. v. Massachusetts
______________ ______________________
_____________
Port Auth., 816 F.2d 9, 12 (1st Cir. 1987) (Breyer, J.);
___________
Hovenkamp, supra,
7 (critiquing the doctrine).
_____
-19-19-

antitrust relief.
complaint are true,

SAS's remedies, if

the allegations of the

lie in contract and the

other pertinent

non-federal claims asserted in its complaint.

Affirmed.
________

-20-20-