This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D announced a tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of common stock of P. P moved for a preliminary injunction. P claimed violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, and § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. P claims that once D gains control of the pipelines owned by P's subsidiaries, D will force those subsidiaries to purchase gas from D at inflated prices. This theory is based on P's 'captive market.' P presented no evidence on building new pipelines, nor did it present significant testimony concerning the availability of alternative fuels or the price elasticity of demand for natural gas in the Chicago market. P presented no evidence that D ever sold their gas at above-market rates. P's witnesses testified that generally, it is important for a pipeline to be independent of producers. Evidence was presented concerning the policies and procedures of the FERC, a federal agency with the power to regulate gas prices and that FERC had never rejected a pipeline's request for a price increase.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.