Blog

Same facts as the previous problem.  However, now assume tha…

Same facts as the previous problem.  However, now assume that Firm A and Firm B proposed to merge and form Firm AB, rather than entering into a contractual agreement.  The post-merger firm, Firm AB, makes the same arguments about post-merger efficiencies – that is, that the post-merger distribution costs will be reduced and subsequently passed on to consumers.  The plaintiff argues that again, while the cost reductions are likely in fact, any such reduction is not cognizable as a matter of relevant antitrust law.  What is the best authority for the plaintiff’s proposition?  

Which of the following cases is the BEST authority for the p…

Which of the following cases is the BEST authority for the proposition that after a plaintiff has successfully made out its prima facie case under Clayton Act Section 7, a defendant may dispel its rebuttal burden of production with any evidence that the merger is not likely to substantially lessen competition?  

Firm A and Firm B are rivals who produce fancy and expensive…

Firm A and Firm B are rivals who produce fancy and expensive big screen televisions.  Firm A and Firm B compete vigorously on many dimensions: price, quality, and service.  Firm A and Firm B enter into an agreement to jointly produce and distribute a co-branded television set.  Firm A argues that its horizontal agreement with Firm B is lawful because the agreement created efficiencies by decreasing costs that both Firms were contractually required to pass through to consumers.  Specifically, Firms A and B argue that the horizontal agreement reduces its distribution costs. The fact finder found that the exact same efficiencies could have been obtained without the horizontal agreement, or through a less restrictive agreement.  Which case best stands for the proposition that Firm A’s efficiency justification is pretextual and thus is not credited in a Section 1 analysis?