Hello, can you assist me with the following law question? Lets assume that Bill Dell Aluminum, acquired the stock and assets of the NY Cable Corporation and that the United States brings suit claiming a violation of amended 7 of the Clayton Act.Also pretend that the year before the merger, NY Cable produced 1.3 percent of the aluminum conductors of the industry, consisting of .3 percent of bare aluminum conductors and 4.7 percent of insulated aluminum conductors.NYalso produced copper conductors.

Bill Dell did not produce any copper conductors but produced 27.8 percent of aluminum conductors, consisting of 32.5 percent of the bare aluminum conductors and 11.6 percent of the insulated aluminum conductors.

The conductors are used principally for electric power transmission lines, with bare or lightly insulated aluminum being generally used for overheard lines, and heavily insulated copper being almost exclusively used for underground lines.The District Court held that the relative line of commerce was conductor wire, whether aluminum or copper, and whether insulated or not.It further held that the merger did not tend to lessen competition within this particular line of commerce.

a) Was it correct about the relevant line of commerce (i.e., the relevant market)?I would think so but I'm having conflicting thought. If you think not, what do you think the relevant line of commerce would be?

b) Was it correct that there was no lessening of competition within what I would consider the line of commerce?Why or why not, under the Clayton Act?