Antitrust, In Pari Delicto, Unclean Hands, No Defense To Antitrust Claim, 2, 5
Following Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. (1951) 340 U.S. 211, Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp. (1968) 392 U.S. 134, Memorex Corp. v. IBM (9th Cir. 1977) 555 F.2d 1379, and Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (9th Cir. 1976) 532 F.2d 674, this decision holds that a plaintiff has standing to bring an antitrust claim to sue for injuries suffered by its business or property interest when competing in a legitimate market, even if such business or property interest has been attained by unlawful means. The public interest in prosecution of antitrust claims overcomes any in pari delicto or unclean hands defense. Even if much or most of plaintiff’s income came from facilitating illegal sales to US citizens of drugs by foreign drug companies, it could still sue for damages to that business caused by the allegedly illegal boycott in which defendant participated.