Facts

Grupo Modelo S.A.B. de C.V. imported its beer into the United States through Crown, which was 50 percent owned by Grupo Modelo and 50 percent owned by Constellation Brands Inc.

Amheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (ABI) owned a 51 percent interest in Grupo Modelo. In 2012, ABI agreed to purchase the remaining equity interest from Grupo Modelo's owners. Under the terms of the proposed acquisition, ABI would obtain Grupo Modelo, and Constellation would obtain the remainder of Crown plus an exclusive license to import the Grupo Modelo beer into the U.S. for 10 years.

In January 2013, the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) sued ABI alleging violation of the Clayton Act. This prompted the parties to amend the proposed offers. In contrast with the earlier proposal, Constellation would acquire an irrevocable exclusive license to import Grupo Modelo beer, and would allow Constellation itself to brew Grupo Modelo-branded beers. This new proposal alleviated the DOJ's concerns. The parties thereafter entered into a stipulation allowing ABI to move forward with the acquisitions.

On March 22, 2013, plaintiffs, consumers and purchasers of beer in the U.S., filed this instant lawsuit alleging violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts. ABI subsequently completed the acquisition and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that they would be harmed by the acquisition because it would raise the price of beer. Plaintiffs also contended that the acquisition effectively creates a monopoly and leads to price-fixing in violation of the Acts. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated the Tunney Act by failing to wait 60 days for public comment before consummating the merger.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Result

U.S. district Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for relief under the Clayton Act, Sherman Act, and Tunney Act. Plaintiffs' claim for relief under unspecified state laws was dismissed with leave to amend. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.