American Stores Antitrust and Merger Case
The case that I found to write my report on was California versus American Stores Co. In a case argued January 16, 1990 before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, a decision was ruled on April 30, 1990, American Stores Co. tried to gain an advantage in the state marketplace by buying up remaining stock of the number one chain the state of California. Shortly after respondent American Stores Co., the fourth largest supermarket chain in California, acquired all of the outstanding stock of the largest chain, the State filed suit in the District Court alleging, inter alia, that the merger constituted an anticompetitive acquisition violative of S 7 of the Clayton Act and would harm consumers throughout the State. It was decided by the court to grant the State a preliminary injunction requiring American to operate the acquired stores separately from the ones already in business until the outcome of the suit had been found. Although agreeing that the State had proved a likelihood of success on the merits and the probability of irreparable harm, the Court of Appeals decided against the injunction on the ground that the relief granted exceeded the District Court's authority to rule in such a manner according to S 16 of the
(a) The plain text of S 16 -- which entitles "[a]ny person . . . to . . . have injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage . . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity" -- authorizes divestiture decrees to remedy S 7 violations. On its face, the simple grant of authority to "have injunctive relief" would seem to encompass that remedy just as plainly as the comparable language in S 15 of the Act, which authorizes the district courts to "prevent and restrain violations" in antitrust actions brought by the United States, and under which divestiture is the preferred remedy for illegal mergers. Moreover, S 16 states no restrictions or exceptions to the forms of injunctive relief a private plaintiff may seek or a court may order, but, rather, evidences Congress' intent that traditional equitable principles govern the grant of such relief. The section's "threatened loss or damage" phrase does not negate the court's power to order divestiture. Assuming, as did the lower courts, that the merger in question violated the antitrust laws, and that the conduct of the merged enterprise threatens economic harm to consumers, such relief would prohibit that conduct from causing that harm. Nor does the section's "threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage" phrase limit the court's power to the granting of relief against anticompetitive "conduct," as opposed to "structural relief," or to the issuance of prohibitory, rather than mandatory, injunctions. That phrase is simply a part of the general reference to the standards that should be applied in fashioning injunctive relief. Section 16, construed to authorize a private divestitutre remedy, fits well in a statutory scheme that favors private enforcement, subjects mergers to searching scrutiny, and regards divestiture as the remedy best suited to redress the ills of an anticompetitive merger. Pp. 278-285. One of the main difficulties was that the merger hinged upon being legal according to the Clayton Act. The outstanding element in quantifying the case was deciding whether or not the case should be ruled illegal, or if it should be merited as a sound case by the Supreme Court. There was a very thin line in deciding this case because of the danger of American Stores becoming a monopoly. If this occurred the consumer would suffer because American Stores would be put in a position that would allow them to set pr
Some common words found in the essay are:
American Stores, District Court's, Steel Co, Clayton Act, Supreme Court, Stores Co, american stores, District Court, Court Appeals, Court Kennedy, injunctive relief, United America, loss damage, threatened loss damage, merger american, chain california, supreme court, clayton act, threatened loss, stores co, merger american stores, american stores co, loss damage phrase, section's threatened, conduct cause loss,
Approximate Word count = 1686
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
