the plaintiff is a poor champion of consumers, a court must be especially careful not to grant relief that may undercut the proper functions of antitrust.”); see also II Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law, ¶ 370 at p. 253 (Rev. ed. 1995) ("Because protecting consumers from monopoly pricing is the central concern of antitrust, buyers have usually been preferred plaintiffs in private antitrust litigation. As a result, consumer standing to recover for an overcharge paid directly to an illegal cartel or monopoly is seldom doubted.”). 7 . See Southwest Suburban, 830 F.2d at 1379-80; Southaven, 715 F.2d at 1086-87; In re Industrial Gas Antitrust Litig., 681 F.2d at 520; see also International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 978 F.2d 1318, 1329 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1588, 123
holding that operator of storage facility who was neither a consumer nor producer of soda ash lacked standing to bring antitrust action against producers of soda ash where direct participants in market would be better plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring securities claims relating to funds that plaintiffs did not own holding that owners and officers of automobile dealership who were neither consumers nor competitors in automobile market lacked standing to bring antitrust action against automobile manufacturer