tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post8544071688296053891..comments2024-03-13T09:09:48.146-07:00Comments on Law School Case Briefs | Legal Outlines | Study Materials: U.S. v. General Dynamics Corp. case brief summaryLawSchoolCaseBriefs.nethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16912283726092434270noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7536265591661518152.post-17338141866984119912014-01-19T18:21:12.007-08:002014-01-19T18:21:12.007-08:00Full case text at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/s...Full case text at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=415&invol=486<br /><br />"Material Service Corp., a deep-mining coal producer, and its successor, appellee General Dynamics Corp., acquired, through stock purchases, control of appellee United Electric Coal Companies, a strip-mining coal producer. The Government brought suit alleging that this acquisition violated 7 of the Clayton Act. The District Court found no violation on the ground, inter alia, that the Government's evidence - consisting principally of past production statistics showing that within certain geographic markets the coal industry was concentrated among a small number of large producers, that this concentration was increasing, and that the acquisition here would materially enlarge the acquiring company's market share and thereby contribute to the concentration trend - did not support the Government's contention that the acquisition substantially lessened competition in the production and sale of coal in either or both of two specified geographic markets. This conclusion was primarily based on a determination that United Electric's coal reserves were so low that its potential to compete with other producers in the future was far weaker than the aggregate production statistics relied on by the Government might otherwise have indicated, virtually all of United Electric's proved reserves being either depleted or already committed by long-term contracts with large customers so that its power to affect the price of coal was severely limited and steadily diminishing."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com