behavior.” Id. at 344, 110 S.Ct. 1884. With such a showing, a plaintiff falls within “the zone of interests protected by” the antitrust laws. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 1388, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (citation omitted). Courts have long permitted distributors to bring antitrust suits against manufacturers engaged in price-fixing. For example, in Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., the Supreme Court affirmed a verdict for a distributor, “a discount operation,” against a manufacturer who conspired with other distributors to “maintain resale prices and terminate price cutters.” 465 U.S. 752, 756, 765, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). See also Pace Elecs., Inc. v. Canon Computer Sys. Inc., 213 F.3d 118, 122-23 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Cf. ARCO, 495 U.S. at 336, 345, 110 S.Ct.
holding just provocation under  3753 requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer holding manufacturer of mobile homes could not deny dealer incentive bonus based on late payment when manufacturer was involved with finance company in delaying payment holding wholesale dealer had antitrust standing in suit against manufacturer where dealer refused to comply with minimum resale price levels set by manufacturer and was terminated as a dealer holding that an automobile dealers liability insurer was not liable for any damage allegedly caused by the negligence of the dealer and sustained in an accident involving an automobile purchased from the dealer or to defend the dealer in the negligence action where the injury occurred outside of the policy period and occurrence was defined in the policy as an accident including injurious exposure to conditions which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damages   holding that there was a triable issue of fact whether a defendant who applied a sprayon fireproofing material was an agent for the manufacturer of the material and thus whether plaintiff is in privity with the manufacturer