Connection lost
Server error
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO. N.V. v. F.T.C. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A court upheld an FTC order blocking a merger between the two dominant U.S. builders of specialized industrial tanks. The acquisition created a near-monopoly, and the court found that high entry barriers prevented new competitors from counteracting the substantial lessening of competition.
Legal Significance: Affirms the flexible application of the Baker Hughes burden-shifting framework in merger challenges and demonstrates that significant entry barriers, such as reputation and regulatory expertise, can defeat a rebuttal defense based on potential competition, even in markets with sophisticated customers.
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO. N.V. v. F.T.C. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) acquired the assets of its primary competitor, Pitt-Des Moines (PDM), in four specialized U.S. markets for industrial storage tanks (LNG, LPG, LIN/LOX) and thermal vacuum chambers (TVCs). Prior to the acquisition, CB&I and PDM operated as a virtual duopoly, constituting the only significant competitors in these markets. For example, between 1975 and the acquisition, they were the only builders of LNG tanks for U.S. import terminals. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenged the merger under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, arguing it would substantially lessen competition. The FTC established a prima facie case based on extremely high post-merger market concentration, as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), and qualitative evidence from customers and internal documents. CB&I attempted to rebut this case by arguing that the threat of entry by new, primarily foreign, competitors would be sufficient to constrain any potential anticompetitive behavior. The FTC rejected this defense, finding that significant barriers to entry—including reputation for U.S.-specific projects, regulatory expertise with FERC, and access to specialized labor—would prevent new entry from being timely, likely, and sufficient to replace the competition lost from PDM’s exit.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the acquisition of a primary competitor in highly concentrated markets violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act where the acquiring firm argued that potential entry by new competitors would be sufficient to prevent anticompetitive effects?
Yes. The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the FTC’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut l
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the acquisition of a primary competitor in highly concentrated markets violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act where the acquiring firm argued that potential entry by new competitors would be sufficient to prevent anticompetitive effects?
Conclusion
This case provides a strong precedent for challenging mergers in highly concentrated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Rule
Under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the government first establishes a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,
Legal Analysis
The court affirmed the FTC's application of the *Baker Hughes* burden-shifting framework, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Fifth Circuit upheld an FTC divestiture order after finding CB&I’s
