Document: 376 U.S. 327 84 S.Ct. 763 11 L.Ed.2d 743 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.WARD BAKING CO. et al. No. 101. Argued Feb. 18, 1964. Decided March 9, William H. Orrick, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellant. Davisson F. Dunlap, Jacksonville, Fla., appellees. Mr. Justice GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This appeal raises question whether and under what circumstances a District Court may properly enter 'consent' judgment in civil antitrust suit without consent Government trial certain disputed issues. 2 On July 21, 1961, filed complaint1 United States Middle Florida. The complaint charged five appellee bakery companies with violating § Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1,2 by conspiring: 3 '(a) To allocate among themselves business supplying products (defined bread rolls) to Naval installations Jacksonville area; 4 '(b) submit noncompetitive, collusive, rigged bids price quotations area.' 5 sought relief, including an adjudication that had violated injunction against allocating or fixing prices naval area, 'such further, general, different relief nature case require deem appropriate premises.' 6 May 8, 1962, after extensive period settlement negotiations, court proposed form which would have enjoined from conspiring to: 7 Submit collusive bids, Allocate, divide rotate (Emphasis added.) 8 also required include sworn statements noncollusion each bid submitted any area following three years. 9 ordered show cause 'why said * should not be entered.' replied, objecting 'to confining scope rolls Installations area' limiting requirement accompanied non-collusion, year period.' 10 then amended motion entry judgment, containing two significant changes their original proposal. Its was broadened all products, only rolls, sales States, its area. Subsequently, at hearing on order cause, agreed increase, years, during they were noncollusion. opposed ground it still omitted necessary items relief: 12 '(1) general fix third party other than Government, (2) urging suggesting seller quotation charging terms conditions sale products.' Despite these objections, entered companies. recited 'without issues fact law herein before taking testimony *.' In his accompanying district judge said: 13 'The demand plaintiff inclusion controversial provisions tendered does reasonable basis here present. Based upon this court's knowledge facts involved Case 11677—Crim—J record, is entering provides entitled decree pro confesso defendant allegations complaint. mere has found committed act violation statute justify broadly obey thus subject contempt proceedings if he shall time future commit some new unlike unrelated originally charged.' 14 pursuant Expediting 32 823, 29, appealed directly judgment. Probable jurisdiction noted. 374 803, 83 1694, 1029. We conclude additional that, consequently, erred Government's actual consent. recognized 'full exploration usually (for Court) draw (an antitrust) decree' so prevent violations eradicate existing evils.' Associated Press v. 326 1, 22, 65 1416, 1425, 89 L.Ed. 2013. After concluded conspiracy restraint trade exists, it: 16 'has duty compel action conspirators will, far practicable, cure ill effects illegal conduct, assure public freedom continuance. Such limited prohibition proven means evil accomplished, but range through practices connected acts actually illegal. Acts entirely proper when viewed alone prohibited. should, denied benefits forbidden conduct. (R) elief, effective, must go beyond narrow limits violation.' Gypsum Co., 340 76, 88—89, 90, 71 160, 169—170, 95 89. 17 It rare where decide item warranted could determined 'opportunity know record.' Id., 89, 169, such case. 18 dispute concerned prohibitions (1) parties 'urging 19 alleged particularly flagrant one. specifically that: 20 'Representatives defendants held meetings conferred telephone purpose allocated manner provide designated quarterly year. When invitations received representatives again meet confer particular declare intended bid. others agree higher protect low bidder.' 21 As 'Acts disregard call repression sterner measures steps reasonably been thought permissible.' U.S., 89—90, not, theory, permissible. 'It salutary principle one restrained committing related unlawful ' National Labor Relations Board Express Pub. 312 426, 436, 61 693, 699, 85 930. 22 allegedly surrounded 'circumstances,' supra, did preclude possibility warranted. fact, tended support view enjoin 'connected' 'related' past followed. informed 'on June 27, federal grand jury Philadelphia indicted Ward Baking Company charge baking 'economy' sold Philadelphia-Trenton record showed, moreover, four previously pleaded nolo contendere charges nongovernment accounts, 'grocery stores, supermarkets, restaurants, hotels similar large purchasers.' Thus, surrounding suggest reaching and, most significantly, Government. 23 Against background, cannot assumed trial, introduced evidence justifying, whole part, sought.3 say, course, correctly concluded, appraise need affirmative actions,' requested Under case, however, trial.4 24 Since we there bona fide disagreement concerning substantive resolved do reach appellees' contention agreement every insistence guilt condition giving conflict congressional policy embodied Clayton 38 731, 16.5 Compare, Brunswick-Balke-Collender 203 F.Supp. 657. seeks adduced entitled, There nothing language legislative history Act indicating Congress give privilege rejecting demands same avoiding merits argued 'foreclosed right (the decides) Decree.' Nor foreclosed where, here, decides, over objection, companies' decree. 25 Accordingly, vacated remanded trial. ordered. 27 Judgment remanded. 1961 indictment returned them substantially subsequent Four companies, wholesale defined purchasers All submitted, objection pleas fines imposed. presided both criminal cases. False Claims Revised Statutes §§ 3490, 3491, 3492, 5438, 31 231—233, derived 2, 1863, 696. settled payment $44,000. certainly regarded within complaint, included request noted regard accede number government went specific requested. contended summary critical produce warranting sought. claim, evidence, produced response Court's why entered. show-cause read detail tender offer response, specified legal factual objections indictment, ante, 332-333, full satisfactory order. 5(a), 16, follows: 'A final heretofore hereafter rendered proceeding brought behalf laws effect prima facie section 15a title, matters respecting estoppel between thereto: Provided, That apply judgments decrees taken actions title.'

Category: 7