has colluded to control the international soda ash market without attempting to forge any link to the competitiveness of the domestic terminalling market. Because IRM has not shown how the decreased competition in the terminalling market of which it complains “flows from that which makes the defendants’ acts unlawful,” Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 489, 97 S.Ct. at 697, IRM fails Brunswick’s second requirement. IRM’s inability, under Brunswick, to challenge ANSAC’s alleged antitrust violations in the soda ash market without demonstrating a connection with the terminall-ing market comports with the sound prudential considerations undergirding antitrust standing doctrine and general standing requirements. See, for example, Associated Gen. Contractors, 459 U.S. at 542- 45,103 S.Ct. at 910-12 (<HOLDING>); Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S.
holding that article iii constitutional standing must be addressed before considering lanham act prudential standing holding that congress may dispense with prudential standing requirements holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing recognizing prudential concerns underlying antitrust standing restrictions