Brief MTCA, 137”). But when my analysis persuaded me that standing was central to many of the issues raised in the motions, I gave the parties fair warning that I was considering it, and invited supplemental briefing on the standing issue. ECF No. 163. Both sides submitted supplemental briefs on antitrust standing.. ECF Nos. 155, 156. The Defendants also filed a letter in reply to Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief. ECF No. 157. Of course, the issue of standing does not even arise unless Plaintiff has pleaded the minimum prerequisites of a potential Sherman Act violation. That threshold has been met here. The Complaint alleges that a cartel fixed prices, the quintessential antitrust violation. See Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc., 457 U.S. 332, 345, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982) (<HOLDING>) (quoting United States v. Socony-Vacumn Oil
holding such agreements to be per se illegal holding that vertical minimum pricefixing agreements like vertical maximum pricefixing agreements should be evaluated under the traditional rule of reason recognizing that the court has consistently and without deviation adhered to the principle that pricefixing agreements are unlawful per se under the sherman act and that any combination which tampers with price structures is engaged in an unlawful activity holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act holding a concerted boycott to be a per se violation of  1 of the sherman act