In a divestiture suit under the Clayton Act, the Southern District of New York limited the investigation necessary to ascertain a section 7 violation on the basis of reciprocity and brought reciprocal dealing standing apart from an acquisition within the purview of section 1 of the Sherman Act by analogy to tying arrangements. The reasoning and conclusions of the court may give significant impetus to the reciprocity concept as a basis for antitrust regulation with important implications for business expansion by diversification acquisition.

Included in

Law Commons