Federal Trade Commission v. H.J. Heinz Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
246 F.3d 708 (2001)
- Written by Nicholas Decoster, JD
Facts
H.J. Heinz Company (Heinz) (defendant) was one of three major competitors in the market for baby food. Gerber Products Company (Gerber) was the first market leader with a share of 65 percent, Heinz was second with 17.4 percent, and Milnot Holding Corporation (Beech-Nut) (defendant) was third with 15.4 percent. In February 2000, Heinz and Beech-Nut reached an agreement to merge. Before the agreement, Heinz was viewed as a value brand and priced its products lower than its competitors. Beech-Nut marketed its baby food as a premium product, which was generally considered to be of a similar quality to Gerber’s products. Heinz manufactured its products at a plant operating at only 40 percent of production capacity. After learning of the proposed merger, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (plaintiff) sued Heinz and Beech-Nut, claiming that the merger would violate antitrust law by producing significant anticompetitive effects in the baby food market. The FTC sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the merger from occurring until the case could be tried on the merits. The district court denied the injunction, holding that Heinz had identified pro-competitive, post-merger efficiencies sufficient to offset the danger to competition. The FTC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Henderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
