Opinion ID: 531046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the relief

Text: 28 Looking first at the nature of the relief, we must determine whether Royal Crown's ends were accomplished and whether the appellants' remedial action was required by law. Posada, 716 F.2d at 1071-72. There is no dispute that the resolution of this action provided Royal Crown with the relief that it sought when it originally filed suit. Through litigation, Royal Crown was hoping permanently to enjoin the appellants from consummating the acquisitions. The defendants' abandonment of the transactions was exactly what Royal Crown desired. 29 Furthermore, the FTC's vote to oppose the mergers supports an inference that Royal Crown had a deserving case on the merits. Cf. Grumman, 533 F.Supp. at 1389 (plaintiffs entitled to attorney's fees where it brought deserving antitrust case). Additionally, in its original complaint and application for a TRO, Royal Crown submitted extensive memorandum, affidavits and exhibits that support a finding that the appellants' proposed acquisitions would have had anticompetitive effects on the soft drink industry in violation of the antitrust laws. (See R1-3-Ex.; R1-1-Exs). While the evidence is certainly inconclusive, we believe that as long as it otherwise establishes that it substantially prevailed, Royal Crown has shown that its lawsuit furthered  'the important national policies the antitrust laws reflect.'  Grumman, 533 F.Supp. at 1389 (quoting 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2572, 2589).