Document: 402 U.S. 673 91 S.Ct. 1752 29 L.Ed.2d 256 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.ARMOUR & CO. and Greyhound Corporation. No. 759. Argued April 19, 1971. Decided June 1, Syllabus The ownership of the majority stock Armour Co., a meat packer, by Corp., which has retail food subsidiaries accordingly engages in business that may be forbidden to Meat Packers Consent Decree 1920, itself without any evidentiary showing as consequences, does not violate Decree's prohibition against 'directly or indirectly * engaging carrying on' business. Pp. 674—683. Affirmed. James van R. Springer, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Edward L. Foote, Chicago, Ill., appellee, Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 Here United States v. 298 268, 90 1723, 26 226, we have been asked determine if prohibits Co. from dealing directly certain specified commodities, corporation deal some those commodities acquiring controlling interest Armour. When this decree was here last Term Government seeking prevent General Host, company engaged manufacture sale variety products, control While case pending, Host agreed sell its regulated motor carrier. After required approval obtained Interstate Commerce Commission, transaction consummated. This Court then dismissed action moot. 398 226. 2 proceeded it had filed petition District alleging Greyhound's engagement business1 firm direct indirect interest, create relationship 1920 Decree. Court, when Host's at issue, held did prohibit such acquisitions. appealed. 3 involve question whether acquisition is illegal under antitrust laws. If wished test proposition, could brought an enjoin § 7 Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, amended, 15 U.S.C. 18. Alternatively, believed changed conditions warranted further relief acquisition, sought modification itself.2 It took neither steps, but, rather, originally written. Thus presents only narrow decree, violates Armour's 4 On February 27, bill equity Nation's five largest meatpackers, including Armour, their subsidiary corporations stockholders, charging conspiratorial individual attempts monopolize substantial part supply. alleged packers, initial position power slaughtering packing business, acquired stockyards, stockyard terminal rail lines, refrigerated rolling stock, cold storage facilities, they used predatory practices eliminate competition 5 having gained monopoly were attempting destroy products might substituted meat. That objective being pursued through nonmeat companies means exclusive output contracts with suppliers. prayer sought, along other prohibitions defendants' monopolize, divestiture most nonpacking operations permanent exclusion them substitute 6 same day complaint filed, defendants answer, denying essential allegations, both sides stipulation consent granting sought. Paragraph Fourth enjoined corporate defendants, 'either indirectly, themselves officers, directors, agents, servants, on, either concert otherwise manufacturing, jobbing, selling distributing, in' long list sold grocery stores. 'owning, capital interests whatsoever' dealt these commodities.3 Eighteenth provided court should retain jurisdiction 'for purpose taking adding foot relief, any, become necessary appropriate out enforcement decree.' 8 Since withstood motion vacate entirety, Swift States, 276 311, 48 72 L.Ed. 587 (1928), two on modified light circumstances. 286 106, 52 460, 76 999 (1932); 189 F.Supp. 885, 892 (ND Ill. 1960), aff'd, 367 909, 81 1918, 1249 (1961). stood time arose, still stands, 9 contend subjects punishment contempt since party decree. Nor acted 'in active participation with' party.4 Instead, argues before retained over pursuant 55 Sherman acting exercise influence affairs divest stock. 10 contention causes activities prohibited claim businesses decree's purported separating meatpackers thus circumvented. 11 But while structural separation kind Government's overall aim, itself, carefully worked between parties exchange right litigate issues, effect complete separation, particular actions relationships one question. crucial provision, Fourth, forbids 'engaging commerce enumerated product lines. language, taken natural sense, bars conduct defendants. trade own form, 'officers, servants.' entry into clearly Draconically prevented separate provision forbidding defendant owning 'any whatsoever'6 trading commodities. In view also bar like Greyhound. contends obligation engage legal ecomomic association firms refers 12 speak terms general, behavior, doing so but all economic interrelationship carry nor acquire there no prohbibition firm, more generally entering firm.7 prohibition, chosen language would established sort now seeks. 13 subsidiaries. end accomplished running stockholders meatpackers. Many action, Fifth.8 paragraph half lines Fourth. negative implications refutes argument For allows stockholder meatpacker controlling, though majority, firm—say 49% common figure unusual situation represent de facto control. 14 Perhaps important, Fifth run named successors assigns. 'successors assigns' clause included, argue persuasiveness prohibited. And able use words wanted to. Third, using distribution facilities handle expressly runs assigns.' short, do find claims. hand, leaves gaps inconsistent separation; other, apt particularity involved used. 16 Stepping back analysis are confronted allow take anticompetitive evils suit prevent. suit, insulate large destruction consolidation packers' substitutes Those purposes, says, frustrated much company's meatpacker's 17 great force addressed responsibility formulating original case, after factual issues raised pleadings litigated. persuasive modifying degree, full litigation, unforeseen circumstances made additional desirable aimed complaint.9 Here, however, where construction existing place. 18 decrees entered careful negotiation produced agreement precise terms. waive save time, expense, inevitable risk litigation. Naturally, reached normally embodies compromise; saving cost elimination risk, each give up something won cannot said purpose; rather opposed resultant opposing purposes respective bargaining skill achieve.10 reasons, scope must discerned within four corners, reference what satisfy it. Because has, waived his raised, guaranteed him Due Process Clause, upon he given waiver respected, instrument construed written, written plaintiff claims theories 19 recognized principles before. Hughes 342 353, 306, 96 394 (1952), construe gave option putting voting trust requiring reasonable even chose alternative, because procompetitive frustrated. responded: 20 'It true Hughes' block types endangers independence each. Evidence show indispensable preserved. However, section V detailed plan neutralize ownership. Whatever justification hereafter new require think fair support reading requirement V.' U.S., 357, S.Ct., 308. 21 Atlantic Refining 360 79 944, 1054 (1959), order limiting dividends payable carriers shipper-owners, allowed paid according stated formula. Noting formula expressed 'be States' contention,' characterizing 'strained,' 22, 946, stated: 22 'The interpretation offers nearly effectuate 'the basic Elkins Acts treat shippers alike.' true. warrant our substantially changing consented adjudication issues.' Id., 23, 946. 23 too, although seeks keeping laws, believe supported 24 25 BLACK BLACKMUN consideration decision case. DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN WHITE concur, dissenting. 27 us again posture. Under abandon wide nonfood They 'manufacturing, selling, transporting 114 30 products. whatsoever any' 28 second total assets almost $700 million sales 1967 approximately $2,150,000,000. addition meatpacking, manufactures, processes, sells various nonprohibited early 1969 Federal make numerous forbid holding handling appealed arguing violation injunction issue. We noted probable jurisdiction. 396 811, 56, 64. interim, agreement, Greyhound, Commission approved acquisition. Following (as Host) therefore prayed Act supplemental enjoining exercising influencing complaint, ruling 'committing acts ground rejected placed 'corporate relationship' relationships; speaks *.' (15 5) provides: 31 'Whenever shall appear proceeding title ends justice court, cause summoned, reside district not; subpoenas served marshal thereof.' All Writs (28 1651(a)) ample frustration 32 well devised render nugatory. 33 none chain Yet stores meatpacking company. I narrowly. evil combining areas. 34 authorities proposition judges who construe, interpret, enforce look designed rectify. See Note, Flexibility Finality Antitrust Decrees, 80 Harv.L.Rev. 1303, 1315.* My Cardozo, writing 999. As Chrysler Corp. 316 556, 562, 62 1146, 1150, 86 1668, reviewing modifications 'whether change thwart 35 Neither 394, 1054, relied contrary. attempt trustee choice himself placing 'until Howard holdings stock.' years, until eve way. Then 'would Acts." 36 present aimed—combining areas—is purchases acquires liabilities, disabilities. disabilities combined set 37 read combination offered affidavit showed deals divisions wholly owned subsidiaries, provide industrial catering services, operates restaurants, cafeterias, eating facilities. states revenues about $124 accounted 16% year. contended buys raw foodstuffs prepared meals. Thus, argues, can restaurant pass contention. Rather, reverse judgment remand proceedings does, Prophet Foods company, plants, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, commercial establishments. 1968 Prophet's excess $77 million. Post Houses, Inc., restaurants bus stations rest meal stop locations. Houses $33 1968. U.S 1668 (1942); see 1303 (1967). Eighth identical provisions respect dairy Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(d) 'Every binding employees, attorneys, persons receive actual notice personal service otherwise.' Section 210, 5, portion '(T)he be, hereby, perpetually restrained owning, severally jointly, servants corporation, except carriers, transporting, above-described commodities.' 'interest' interest; 'owning' interest. n. 6, supra. Clearly, nothing approaching Greyhoud's 'That them, from, aggregate amounts 50% resulting amounting 50 per cent device gives (specified products).' sources cited 2, Cf. Finality, supra, 1314 1315. cases Requests Modification 75 Yale L.J. 657, 667—668, 56.

Category: 7