Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Federal Trade Commission v. Butterworth Health Corp. Case Brief

District Court, W.D. Michigan1996Docket #1925926
946 F. Supp. 1285 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17529

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

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: The FTC sought to block a merger of two nonprofit hospitals, arguing it would lessen competition. The court denied the injunction, finding the hospitals’ nonprofit status, community commitments, and expected efficiencies rebutted the presumption of anticompetitive harm from increased market concentration.

Legal Significance: This case is significant for allowing defendants in a nonprofit hospital merger to rebut a prima facie case of anticompetitive effects with evidence of their nonprofit status, community-oriented governance, and a binding commitment to pass efficiencies on to consumers, thereby challenging traditional merger analysis assumptions.

Federal Trade Commission v. Butterworth Health Corp. 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

Defendants Butterworth Health Corporation and Blodgett Memorial Medical Center, two large, nonprofit general acute care hospitals in Grand Rapids, Michigan, proposed to merge. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sought a preliminary injunction under § 13(b) of the FTC Act to block the merger, arguing it would violate § 7 of the Clayton Act by substantially lessening competition. The FTC established a prima facie case by defining two relevant markets: (1) general acute care inpatient services in the “Greater Kent County area” and (2) primary care inpatient services in the “immediate Grand Rapids area.” Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), the FTC demonstrated the merger would lead to very high market concentration in both markets, creating a presumption of illegality. In rebuttal, the hospitals argued their nonprofit status, governance by prominent community and business leaders, and significant projected efficiencies (over $100 million) meant the merger would benefit, not harm, consumers. They also offered a legally binding “Community Commitment” to freeze prices, limit profit margins, and pass savings to the community, which the court incorporated into a consent decree.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can nonprofit hospitals successfully rebut a prima facie case of anticompetitive effects under Section 7 of the Clayton Act by demonstrating that their nonprofit status, community-oriented governance, and projected efficiencies will prevent consumer harm despite high market concentration?

Yes. The court denied the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, holding 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 mol

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Can nonprofit hospitals successfully rebut a prima facie case of anticompetitive effects under Section 7 of the Clayton Act by demonstrating that their nonprofit status, community-oriented governance, and projected efficiencies will prevent consumer harm despite high market concentration?

Conclusion

This decision provides a significant, though not universally followed, precedent for how 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 fu

Legal Rule

A defendant in a merger case may rebut the presumption of illegality 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 oc

Legal Analysis

The court first accepted the FTC's definition of the relevant product and 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, consecte

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The court denied the FTC’s request to enjoin a merger between
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 fugi

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is practice.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+