Federal Trade Commission v. Advocate Health Care Network

Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiffs’ request for issuance of preliminary injunction in action alleging that defendants’ proposed merger of two hospitals violated section 7 of Clayton Act, where Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff had failed to establish relevant geographic market. Remand was required for new determination, where: (1) plaintiffs’ expert found in both proposed eleven-hospital and proposed fifteen-hospital geographic markets that instant proposed merger would result in presumptively unlawful increase in market concentration; (2) Dist. Ct. misunderstood hypothetical monopolist test when calculating relevant geographic market; and (3) Dist. Ct. further held mistaken belief that plaintiff’s expert lacked basis for distinguishing local hospitals from academic medical centers and that evidence regarding patient preference for local hospitals was only equivocal.