Same facts as the previous problem. However, now assume tha…
Same facts as the previous problem. However, now assume that Firm A and Firm B proposed to merge and form Firm AB, rather than entering into a contractual agreement. The post-merger firm, Firm AB, makes the same arguments about post-merger efficiencies – that is, that the post-merger distribution costs will be reduced and subsequently passed on to consumers. The plaintiff argues that again, while the cost reductions are likely in fact, any such reduction is not cognizable as a matter of relevant antitrust law. What is the best authority for the plaintiff’s proposition?