Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/103452/united-states-vs-michigan-nat-l-corp
Timestamp: 2018-02-25 10:04:34
Document Index: 606646699

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1842', '§ 1828', '§ 11', '§ 1849', '§ 1828', '§ 1849']

United States Vs Michigan Nat L Corp - Citation 103452 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Michigan Nat'l Corp. - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/103452
Case Number 419 U.S. 1
Respondent Michigan Nat'l Corp.
.....united states district court for the eastern district of michigan syllabus appellee bank holding company's planned acquisition of additional banks was governed by both the bank holding company act requiring the federal reserve board's approval of the acquisition and the bank merger act requiring the comptroller of the currency's approval. both statutes provide that an antitrust suit challenging a transaction approved by the designated agency must be brought within 30 days of such approval. within 30 days after the board had approved the planned acquisition, but before the comptroller had acted, the government brought a clayton act suit to enjoin the acquisition, which the district court dismissed without prejudice, ruling that the government should bring a new suit if and.....
United States v. Michigan Nat'l Corp. - 419 U.S. 1 (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Michigan Nat'l Corp., 419 U.S. 1 (1974)
The form of the transaction brings it within the purview of two regulatory statutes. Section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 134, as amended, 80 Stat. 237, 12 U.S.C. § 1842, requires that an acquisition of a subsidiary bank by a holding company be approved by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Section 18(c)(2)(A) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended by the Bank Merger Act, 80 Stat. 7, 12 U.S.C. § 1828(c)(2)(A), requires approval of bank mergers by a designated agency, which, in the case of an acquisition by a national bank, is the Comptroller of the Currency. Each regulatory statute provides time limitations for antitrust suits challenging transactions that have gained administrative approval. The Bank Holding Company Act, § 11, as amended, 80 Stat. 240, 12 U.S.C. § 1849, provides that an antitrust suit arising from a holding company acquisition must be brought within 30 days of approval by the Federal Reserve Board. The Bank Merger Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1828(c)(6) and (7), establishes a similar 30-day period following approval of a merger by the designated administrative body. [ Footnote 1 ] Under both statutes,
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227 , 300 U. S. 241 (1937).
must await a determination by an administrative agency having primary jurisdiction. See Carnation Co. v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 383 U. S. 213 , 383 U. S. 222 -224 (1966); General American Tank Car Corp. v. El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422 , 308 U. S. 432 433 (1940); Mitchell Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247 (1913). Dismissal, rather than a stay, has been approved where there is assurance that no party is prejudiced thereby. [ Footnote 2 ] See Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570 (1952).
In the present case, we cannot say with assurance that the Government will not be prejudiced by a dismissal. Section 11 of the Bank Holding Company Act provides that " [a]ny action brought under the antitrust laws arising out of an acquisition, merger, or consolidation transaction" shall be commenced within the 30-day period following approval by the Board. 12 U.S.C. § 1849(b) (emphasis added). By the time the Comptroller approves the mergers, the 30-day period following Board approval may have long since expired. [ Footnote 3 ] By waiting
Congress does not appear to have considered expressly the application of the time limitations to transactions falling within both regulatory statutes. [ Footnote 4 ] While the question is not free from doubt, there is a procedure that preserves beyond doubt the Government's ability fully to pursue its Clayton Act suit and at the same time produces no hardship to the other party. [ Footnote 5 ] Where suit is brought after the first administrative decision and stayed until remaining administrative proceedings have concluded, judicial resources are conserved and both parties fully protected.