For Your Data Ftc V. H.J. Heinz Co. Illustration Brief
August 31, 2019
Edit
FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co. illustration brief summary
FACTS
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) attempted to limit the merger of Heinz in addition to Beech-Nut, 2 of the 3 firms that dominated the babe nutrient marketplace (with Gerber asset a 65% marketplace part in addition to the other 2 asset 32.8% of the market, combined).
HOLDING
The Court used the Baker Hughes burden shifting scheme to analyze the likelihood of success on the merits in addition to ruled that the defendants failed to rebut the prima facie case, since the to a greater extent than compelling the prima facie case, the to a greater extent than prove the accused must acquaint to rebut it.
FACTS
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) attempted to limit the merger of Heinz in addition to Beech-Nut, 2 of the 3 firms that dominated the babe nutrient marketplace (with Gerber asset a 65% marketplace part in addition to the other 2 asset 32.8% of the market, combined).
HOLDING
The Court used the Baker Hughes burden shifting scheme to analyze the likelihood of success on the merits in addition to ruled that the defendants failed to rebut the prima facie case, since the to a greater extent than compelling the prima facie case, the to a greater extent than prove the accused must acquaint to rebut it.
Notable Facts
- Baker testified to the beingness of numerous cartel problems that would cut down whatever incentive of the merged theatre to collude amongst Gerber; it would attempt to growth its marketplace part at Gerber’s expense.
- The babe nutrient manufacture has pregnant barriers to entry.
Legal Considerations
- Merely establishing a prima facie illustration (the structural presumption) is insufficient to hold out awarded a preliminary injunction.
Analysis
- There are 2 possible interpretations of Heinz: either market concentration places a heavy pollex on the scale inwards favor of finding impairment to contest (strengthening the structural presumption) OR the Baker Hughes totality of circumstances examination only came out against the defendants.
- Although the burden shifting system is consistent amongst Baker Hughes, it seems every bit if the presumption created past times the prima facie illustration is significantly stronger.
- Professor Baker thinks that this is actually a i to 2 merger because neither Heinz nor Beech-Nut could actually compete amongst Gerber pre-merger, but subsequently Heinz in addition to Beechnut merged, they could compete. Beech-nut had a actually topnotch brand, but had old, insufficient production facilities; Heinz had modern production facilities but did non convey a rigid brand.
- Baker likewise did about studies most the brands in addition to concluded that at that topographic point was real petty contest betwixt the Heinz in addition to Beechnut brands (because y'all would convey to alter supermarkets inwards lodge to switch betwixt Heinz in addition to Beechnut).