Shirley McQuillan Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Sorbothane, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

The mandate in this case issued October 19, 1991. The Supreme Court denied' the petition for certiorari of appellants Sorbo-thane, Inc., Hamilton-Kent, BTR and Kenneth M. Leighton. See Sorbothane, Inc. v. McQuillan, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1358 , 122 L.Ed.2d 738 (1993). Thus, the judgment is final as to these appellants.

As to the appellants Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr., the Supreme Court granted their petition for certiorari for the limited purpose of deciding whether proving an attempt to monopolize under Section 2 of the Sherman Act requires proof of a dangerous probability of monopolization of a relevant market. See Spectrum Sports Inc. v. McQuillan, — U.S.-,-, 113 S.Ct. 884, 889 , 122 L.Ed.2d 247 (1993). The Court held that such proof was required, and reversed our prior decision as to Spectrum Sports and Kenneth B. Leighton, Jr. and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id. at-, 113 S.Ct. at 892.

However, the Court has been informed by counsel that the appellees’ judgment has been paid in full by Sorbothane, Inc., Hamilton-Kent, BTR and Kenneth M. Leighton. Further, the appellees have taken the position in their brief filed January…