Opinion ID: 106959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the de beers and deckert cases.

Text: It is surprising that the Court has been content to so cursorily lay aside De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212, for upon examination that case will be found to be indistinguishable from the present case and should control this litigation on the personal jurisdiction issue. The United States brought a Sherman antitrust action against De Beers and other African-based diamond companies alleging monopolization and conspiracy in restraint of trade. All were allegedly doing business within the United States. With the complaint the Government requested a preliminary injunction freezing all property in the United States belonging to the defendants. As stated in the opinion, the reasons given in support of the motion were:  `The injury to the United States of America from the withdrawal of said deposits, diamonds or other property would be irreparable because sequestration of said property is the only means of enforcing this Court's orders or decree against said foreign corporate defendants. The principal business of said defendants is carried on in foreign countries and they could quickly withdraw their assets from the United States and so prevent enforcement of any order or decree which this Court may render.' Amongst other supporting papers was an affidavit by counsel for the United States which stated that `the investigation which he has made shows the foreign corporate defendants named herein have endeavored to avoid subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States by making their sales abroad only and requiring customers to pay in advance for all purchases.'  325 U. S., at 215-216. Under the Sherman Act district courts had power to prevent and restrain violations of this act (26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 4 (1958 ed.)), and, under the all-writs section of the Judicial Code, to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law (now 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (1958 ed.)). The Court construed these grants of authority as limited to traditional equitable powers. It then demonstrated the remoteness of any levy by the Government against the property of the defendants, and because of the remoteness vacated the freeze order. It should be noted that unlike the present case the property sought to be frozen was within the borders of the United States, and, that without a hold on it, an order to the defendants to stop their alleged monopolistic practices would have been as little likely to meet with voluntary compliance as an order to Omar to pay $19,300,000. The Government would distinguish De Beers on the ground that under the Sherman Act the trial court could award only injunctive relief, whereas in the present case the judgment, were the Government successful, would be a money award. However, the De Beers Court recognized that levy against the property could ultimately be had as a means of enforcing the injunctive order. Clearly the Court's point in emphasizing the scope of the order which could issue in the first instance was that the possibility of an ultimate levy was too remote in practical terms to justify freezing the property from the outset of the litigation. Remoteness is the determinative point, whatever its cause, and in terms of remoteness the case before us argues even stronger than De Beers against the issuance of what amounts to an interim sequestration order. The principles of De Beers should govern this litigation. [18] The Government puts forth Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U. S. 282, instead of De Beers as the case most analogous to the present one. In Deckert a bill in equity was brought against an insolvent and allegedly fraudulent securities vendor and against a third party who held assets of the vendor. By way of interlocutory relief the plaintiffs asked that the assets in the hands of the third party be frozen, and this Court sustained the request. Distinguishing features are many. Deckert involved no international problems. The court had personal jurisdiction over all parties concerned. There was no question of power to enforce a judgment against the frozen funds. The only contingency on which enforcement depended was whether the plaintiff would win the suit; thus, there was virtually no problem of remoteness. And unlike the present case (see infra, pp. 404-409), the frozen funds could have been attached directly by a suit quasi in rem in a state court. [19]