American stores antitrust and
American stores antitrust andThe 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 � 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 � 16 of the Act to order "injunctive relief." The court relied on an previous decision in which the court had concluded on the basis of its reading of excerpts from subcommittee hearings that � 16's draftsmen did not intend to authorize the remedies of "dissolution" or "divestiture" in private litigants' actions. Thus, held the court, the "indirect divestiture" effected by the preliminary injunction was impermissible.
The following was obtained directly from the website with url http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/summaries/495us271.html
Divestiture is a form of "injunctive relief" authorized by � 16. Pp. 278-296.
(a) The plain text of � 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 � 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 � 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, � 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...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.