Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. FTC, 291 U.S. 587, 54 S.Ct. 532, 78 L.Ed. 1007 (1934), a case which held that if the FTC elected to challenge a merger, its challenge must be made prior to the consummation of the merger. Arrow-Hart is not on point since it deals with a challenge by the FTC. Arrow-Hart does not hold that private plaintiffs, such as plaintiffs here, lose standing to challenge a merger after it is consummated. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated A Likelihood of Success on the Merits The probability that plaintiffs will succeed on the merits is negligible for several reasons. First, not one of the plaintiffs has established that it will suffer an antitrust injury as a result of the merger. See Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 109-110, 107 S.Ct. 484, 488-89, 93 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff seeking injunction under clayton act  16 must allege an injury of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent  (B) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (C) holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit (D) holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts (E) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing
Output (English): holding that plaintiff seeking injunction under clayton act  16 must allege an injury of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent