opinion: ENGINE SPECIALTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOMBARDIER LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant.
  No. 71-1293.
  United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
  Heard Nov. 3, 1971.
  Decided Jan. 20, 1972.
  John Vanderstar, Washington, D. C., with whom George H. Lewald, William L. Patton, Ropes & Gray, Boston, Mass., and Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for defendant-appellant.
  Thayer Fremont-Smith, Boston, Mass., with whom Robert S. Frank, Jr., and Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, Mass., were on brief for plaintiff-appellee.
  Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, BREITENSTEIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and COFFIN, Circuit Judge.
  Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
  BREITENSTEIN, Senior Circuit Judge.
  This appeal relates to the grant of a preliminary injunction, and not to the merits of the controversy. Plaintiff-ap-pellee, Engine Specialties, Inc. (ESI), sought and obtained a preliminary injunction restraining defendant-appellant, Bombardier, Ltd. (Bombardier), from marketing in North America certain mini-bikes or mini-cycles manufactured by an Italian corporation, Agra-ti-Garelli, S.p.A. (Agrati).
  ESI, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office in that state, distributes recreational vehicles including mini-cycles. ESI had contracted with Agrati for Agrati to manufacture and sell mini-cycles to ESI for distribution under ESI’s trade name “Bronco.” ESI’s action was based on claims that Bombardier, a Canadian corporation which manufactures snowmobiles, had tortiously induced Agrati to breach its contract with ESI, had maliciously interfered with a profitable business relationship between ESI and Agrati, and had violated the federal anti-trust laws. Agrati is not a party to the action. The district court, D.C., 330 F.Supp. 762, after finding that ESI was likely to prevail on the merits and was suffering irreparable harm, entered a preliminary injunction against Bombardier.
  The initial 1967 ESI-Agrati contract was supplemented in 1968 and 1970. The 1968 agreement covered further sales of mini-cycles to ESI by Agrati, shipping schedules, and procedures concerning letters of credit. It also provided that after one year either party could cancel the agreement upon six months notice, and that, if Agrati can-celled, it would be precluded from selling in North America certain mini-cycles for one or two years depending on the model involved. The 1970 agreement, among other things, amended the 1968 agreement so that any default by ESI continuing for 20 days would terminate the 1968 agreement, and more importantly would void the covenant not to compete.
  In August, 1970, representatives of Bombardier and Agrati met in Canada to discuss possible arrangements between them for the manufacture and sale of mini-cycles in the United States and Canada. Nothing concrete came of that meeting, but as the discussions progressed Bombardier became aware of the ESI-Agrati contract. Bombardier unsuccessfully attempted to persuade ESI to relinquish its distributorship contract. On September 16, Agrati decided to invoke the six-month termination clause and, thereafter, Bombardier and Agrati discussed possible methods of “getting around” the covenant not to compete.
  The course of business dealings between Agrati and ESI had not complied strictly with their contractual agreements. At various times issues arose over shipping schedules and letters of credit which.might have indicated a default by one of the parties. Neither party was inflexible, and matters were amicably settled. On October 16, 1970, Agrati wrote ESI, complained about letters of .credit and shipping schedules, and said that because of irregularities ESI was considered to be in default of the 1968 agreement. However, on October 19 Agrati telephoned ESI and agreed to new shipping schedules. By an October 26 letter to Agrati, ESI contested the default claim and asserted that the difficulties had been caused by Agrati, that the October 19 telephone conversation had taken care of the matter, and that ESI had complied with the shipping agreements. On November 6, Agrati cabled ESI and demanded that letters of credit be opened for forthcoming shipments.
  On November 7, Bombardier and Agrati representatives met in Philadelphia. On November 15, ESI cabled Agrati in response to the November 6 cable and requested a shipment delay of 10-15 days. By a November 25 letter Agrati wrote ESI that the 1968 and 1970 agreements had been immediately terminated because of ESI’s failure to open letters of credit and meet shipping schedules. Since then, Agrati has refused to supply ESI with mini-cycles or parts. On December 8, ESI opened a letter of credit for the November shipment and so informed Agrati. In reply Agrati confirmed the November 25 letter and said that further inquiries should be made through their lawyers. Since December, Agrati has supplied Bombardier with Bronco-type mini-cycles for distribution in the United States and Canada.
  Bombardier was served by mail at its corporate headquarters in Canada. The first question is whether extraterritorial service suffices to subject Bombardier to in personam jurisdiction. Reliance is had on the Massachusetts long arm statute and on the federal anti-trust statutes. The record is unclear as to which basis was held by the trial court to sustain its jurisdiction.
  The applicable provisions of the Massachusetts long arm statute are, Mass. G.L. c. 223A, § 3:
  “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action in law or equity arising from the person’s * * *
  (d) causing tortious injury in this commonwealth by an act or omission outside this commonwealth if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this commonwealth; * *
  ESI has no offices or place of business in Massachusetts. Bombardier does not have a place of business in Massachusetts, but does have one of its two wholly owned American subsidiaries there. Agrati has no place of business in Massachusetts.
  The applicability of the statute depends on whether there has been a “tor-tious injury in [the] commonwealth” as the result of Bombardier’s actions. See, e. g., Mark v. Obear & Sons, Inc., D. Mass., 1970, 313 F.Supp. 373. Bombardier says that any measure of injury would be the loss of ESI profits and that such loss would occur at ESI’s principal place of business, in Pennsylvania. ESI responds that in 1970 more than $130,000 worth of mini-cycles were sold by its franchised distributor in Massachusetts and that its sales and goodwill obtained, in part by advertising in the commonwealth have been injured by Bombardier’s sale of Bronco-type mini-cycles. In our opinion the claim of impairment of ESI’s Massachusetts business is a sufficient assertion of tortious injury in the commonwealth.
  Bombardier says that if the action satisfies the requirements of the long arm statute, its application is unconstitutional in the light of the principles of fairness and convenience set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 1945, 326 U.S. 310, 316-317, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95. Bombardier’s efforts to minimize its contacts in Massachusetts are not impressive. It has there a wholly owned subsidiary, Bombardier > East, with interlocking directors and officers. In 1970 it sold $5,325,000 worth of products to its subsidiary. The parent exercises financial and managerial supervision over its subsidiary and carries on extensive sales campaigns in Massachusetts.
  We recognized in Seymour v. Parke, Davis & Company, 1 Cir., 1970, 423 F.2d 584, 585-586, that International Shoe, by substituting principles of fairness and convenience for earlier concepts of presence, restricts as well as enlarges jurisdictional concepts. In Seymour, a Massachusetts resident was injured in that state but, because its statute of limitations had run, brought suit in New Hampshire under its long arm statute. The plaintiff had no contracts with New Hampshire and the defendant’s activities in that state were advertising and employing salesmen to solicit orders. We held that the lack of fairness prevented the assumption of jurisdiction, and recognized an exception when the defendant; had significantly entered the business life of the forum community. Ibid, at 587. Bombardier significantly entered the business life of Massachusetts. Having done so, it may not now avoid the “distasteful consequences” of suit. Volkswagen Interamericana, S. A. v. Rohlsen, 1 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d 437, 441, cert, denied 385 U.S. 919, 87 S.Ct. 230, 17 L.Ed.2d 143. In our opinion jurisdiction lies under the Massachusetts long arm statute. In the circumstances the^e is no reason to discuss jurisdiction under the federal anti-trust laws.
  After a hearing at which both sides relied on a mass of affidavits, depositions, and documents, the court granted the preliminary injunction which' is now under attack. To prevail Bombardier has the heavy burden of showing a clear error of law or an abuse of discretion. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Ford Motor Company, 1 Cir., 1968, 390 F.2d 113, 115, cert, denied 391 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 807, 20 L.Ed.2d 653. The clearly erroneous rule is applicable even where, as here, a finding is based on documentary evidence or undisputed facts. Leach v. Crucible Center Company, 1 Cir., 1968, 388 F.2d 176, 179.
  Bombardier attacks three findings of fact. The first relates to the finding that Agrati waived any contract defaults by ESI. On the basis of correspondence and the affidavit of the president of ESI, the court found that the ESI-Agrati course of conduct operated to waive conditions pertaining to letters of credit and shipping schedules and that Agrati's conduct negated the implication that the contract was dead for want of compliance by ESI. Bombardier’s disagreement with the court’s interpretation of the events does not make the finding erroneous. We believe that the court placed a reasonable interpretation on the facts and that its finding of waiver is sustained by the record.
  Next, Bombardier argues that if there was waiver, the finding that Bombardier had knowledge of it is clearly erroneous. The court painstakingly reviewed the facts and found that the circumstances of the November meeting between Bombardier and Agrati representatives and the initial draft of a Bombardier-Agrati agreement, along with other evidence, established knowledge by Bombardier. Here again the finding has record support and we accept it.
  Finally, the finding of irreparable injury is attacked. Bombardier argues that ESI had other models of mini-cycles to sell and that its sales do not reflect irreparable harm because of loss of the Agrati line. The trial court ■ pointed out that in addition to loss of an item which ESI had successfully marketed since 1967, “it must compete against the sale of that very item by defendant;” that ESI sales were “markedly o,ff” from preceding years; that its relations with its dealers have been severely impaired; and that these types of harm were not “readily computable or recompensable in money damages.” The Agrati mini-cycles were ESI’s best selling item and there is evidence that the loss of that item had turned ESI from a profitable business into an unprofitable one. An injunction is proper to prevent the threatened extinction of a business, Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 2 Cir., 1970, 429 F.2d 1197, 1205, and to prevent disruption of a company’s relationship with its dealers, Bergen Drug Company, Inc. v. Parke, Davis & Company, 3 Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d 725, 728. We are satisfied with the showing of irreparable injury.
  Bombardier’s last argument is that the grant of the preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. It says that the ESI-Agrati contract contained an arbitration provision which precludes ESI from proceeding against Bombardier. The arbitration agreement was a matter between ESI and Agrati. Bombardier was not a party to it. The inability of ESI to sue Agrati for breach has nothing to do with the tort claim which ESI asserts against Bombardier.
  The argument that, because the injunction cannot restore the Agrati line to ESI, it serves no purpose other than punishing Bombardier does not impress us. The injunction is preventative because the record shows that Bombardier’s marketing of the Agrati mini-cycles was irreparably injuring ESI. The record convinces us that “the balance of hardships” clearly tips in favor of ESI, Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 2 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 738, 740, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.
  The order granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed.
  . Apparently, a mini-cycle is similar to a light weight motorcycle, and a minibike is somewhat smaller than a mini-cycle. Hereinafter only the term mini-cycle will be used.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.