Document: 381 U.S. 311 85 S.Ct. 1473 14 L.Ed.2d 405 MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CO., Petitioner,v.NEW JERSEY WOOD FINISHING CO. No. 291. Argued April 29, 1965. Decided May 24, [Syllabus from pages 311-312 intentionally omitted] Sidney P. Howell, Jr., New York City, for petitioner. Albert G. Besser, Newark, N.J., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This private treble-damage antitrust action was brought by Jersey Wood Finishing Company against Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Essex Wire Corporation.1 Respondent's original complaint filed on November 20, 1961.2 It alleged violations § 7 Clayton Act,3 a conspiracy to restrain commerce in electrical insulation products violation Sherman Act an attempt monoplize same as prohibited 2.4 The substance concerned acquisition 1956 all assets Insulation Wires, Inc., subsidiary Essex, trade products. latter claimed that suit barred four-year limitation provision Act.5 However, asserted bar statute had been tolled proceeding 1960 Federal Trade Commission under Act. That resulted consent order which directed divest itself acquired. Section 5(b) Act6 provides 'civil or criminal * instituted United States prevent, restrain, punish any laws' suspends running limitations during pendency thereof one year thereafter with respect actions arising those laws based matter complained government suit. questions here are whether proceedings toll 4B extent judicial and, if they do, claim is 'any of' action. District Court denied Mining's motion dismiss, holding this timely filed. 216 F.Supp. 507. Appeals affirmed. 332 F.2d 346. We granted certiorari because conflict between circuits7 importance question administration 379 877, 146, 13 85. I. 2 engaged manufacture materials, some it sells independent distributors who, turn, sell wire cable manufacturers fabricators. difversified company, its divisions producing materials. substantial consumer material. owned Wires distributes type 3 In August bought directing divestiture so dated 1961. charged prior 1953 leading manufacturer tape; through five transactions years 1952 also control shares other major product lines; subsequent two three largest these might have effect actually potentially lessening competition tending create monopoly various aspects commerce. One acquired Wires. 4 Thereafter, within year, need not detail allegations complaint. sufficient say gist primary distributor throughout States; next month notified beginning January 1957 would no longer distribute conspiring manufacture, sale distribution continuing until filing There were numerous overt acts being furtherance conspiracy, first acquisition. II. 5 At outset necessary examine 5(a) Act8 relationship 5(b). former makes final judgment decree civil behalf prima facie evidence suits 'as matters respecting said be estoppel parties thereto.' Several distinctions sections apparent suggest wholly interdependent. First, words 'final decree' used crucial significance application. tolls set out time regardless ultimately entered. Its applicability way turns success Government prosecuting case. Moreover, may only operate parties. No such appears tolling provision. applies every right whole part matter' 6 When we turn express language statutory provisions congressional policies underlying them, becomes even more should limitations. discussed at greater length below. juncture framing Congress focused narrow issue use judgments decrees evidence. recognized Emich Motors Corp. v. General Corp., 340 558, 71 408, 95 L.Ed. 534 (1951), where stated purpose 'to minimize burdens litigation injured suitors making available them previously established actions' permit large advantage doctrine afford suit.' Id., 568, 413. As shall show, however, adopting limited, then dealing delicate area secured third. Whatever ambiguities exist legislative history questions, plain meant assist litigants utilizing benefits cull actions. See S.Rep.No.619, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 6, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1955, p. 2328. distinction emphasized Union Carbide Carbon Nisley, 10 Cir., 300 561 (1962), court after noting analysis supra, that: 'The corollary second paragraph (now 5(b)) vouchsafe intended related suspending termination proceedings, allowing suitor prepare file his competency necessarily restricted requirements due process. But limited.' 569. 8 our view, therefore, coextensive; governed different considerations well policy objectives. readily severable 5(a). Even assumed arguendo inapplicable proceedings—a upon venture opinion—that conclusion immaterial consideration 4B. has expressed belief surest weapons effective enforcement laws. construction will lend considerable impetus policy. III. 9 5, later §§ 5(b), passed response plea President Wilson. speech 1914, he urged law enacted victims 'redress facts proved entered Government' 'the suffered run date Government's action.' 51 Cong.Rec. 1964. broad aim enactment 'private self-interest means enforcement' Bruce's Juices, Inc. American Can Co., 330 743, 751, 67 1015, 1019, 91 1219 (1947). 'entire (was) help persons small who their property business combinations corporations violating laws.' H.R.Rep.No.627, 627, 63d 2d 14. S.Rep. 619, 6. be, contends, when logical backstop clause though complements permitting litigant await outcome rendered therein—a benefit often limited practical value9—it certainly effect. pointed out, textual basis indicate serve comprehensive function scheme things. initial aid number ways. pleadings, transcripts testimony, exhibits documents him most instances. fact, rules provide. 16 CFR 1.132(e). generally 1.131 et seq. difficult tested definitively resolved before enters fray. resources expertise staff render tremendous aside value derive decree. Indeed, useful service source Bicks, Department Private Treble Damage Actions, Antitrust Bull. (1959); Loevinger, Handling Plaintiff's Suit, 29 (1959). 11 Admittedly, there little consciously include sweep neither exclude them. fact record 1914 reveals almost complete absence discussion problem. seems simply did consider coverage course deliberations. 12 light silence must determine proceedings. resolving rely element intention clearly desire permitted Implicit objective necessity Otherwise flowing segment effort would, many cases, connection, significance, potential advantages reach far beyond specific accruing Furthermore, flow naturally do Yet petitioner contends but former. Such grudging interpretation interrelationship 4B, collide head-on Congress' basic Acceptance petitioner's position make enjoyment arbitrary allocation responsibility Commission, therefore reject it. true precise does encompass literal wording controlling where, here, evidenced acceptance nor rejection either interpretation, yet effects while defeats pivotal determination event Term Burnett Central R. 380 424, 427, 1050, 1054 (1965): '(W)hether effectuated given circumstances.' intent, purposes provision, itself, remedial developed rights Act.' Ibid. Guided criteria, think clear sustaining effectively served cases this, deem controlling. novel one. Holmes, sitting circuit, noted Johnson States, 163 F. 30, 32, 18 L.R.A., N.S., 1194: 'A require justification change law, although expresses likely occur mind. Legislature power decide what intimated will, indirectly, obeyed. premise statute, induces enactment, terms, adequate discharge duty courts say: see you driving at, it, go before.' 15 hold, circumstances give objectives enacting 5(b)—objectives frustrated contrary thereby deprive numbers pursued governmental agency rather than other. IV. further insofar asserts claims, Commission's proceeding. cannot agree. 17 Wood's claims res monopolize be: (1) Wires; (2) prevent distributing products; (3) insure Wires' supplies purchased subsidiary; (4) tie-in sales (5) deal purchasing exclusion competitive handling disruption pattern enjoyed denial access national markets Certainly 'in part' acquisition, along another distributor, placed hands Mining, manufacturer, business; following acquisitions discontinued Mining; actual competition' foreclosure share us both up substantially claims. required proof anticompetitive carries onerous burden restraint. complaint, allege 'actual' 'potential' competition, i.e., 'have foreclosed markets.' monopolization count phrased terms 'attempt monopolize,' illegal successful. Columbia Steel 334 495, 525, 531—532, 68 1107, 1123, 1126, 92 1533 (1948). 19 difference alleges conduct lessen activity done so. without long anti-competitive challenged less merely requires meet can sustained. 20 Affirmed. 21 HARLAN STEWART participate decision 22 BLACK, dissenting. 23 bars damage unless four cause arises.1 Act, amended, U.S.C. 16(b) (1964 ed.), period '(w)henever *.' I am unable agree Court's purely administrative initiated decided regulatory kind *' concedes amended proceedings' 'there provision.' And Solicitor General, urging amicus curiae result reaches today, candidly admits 'result perhaps impossible justify conventional text persuasively, conclusively, show intend gives decision. 24 now divided into subdivisions (a) (b), Wilson's enact designed easier collect damages lawsuits since preparing case corporate defendant larger task could undertake. To accomplish single recommended Congress, notes, things—that seek accepted President's recommendation section paragraphs, 'a prosecution equity evidence' refer prosecutions courts. parts obviously complementary, party utilize obtained providing whereby confident committee reports, (Emphasis supplied.) S.Rep.No.698, 45. Therefore, complementary nature paragraphs ought doubt apply tribunal court, common understanding mentioned 5(a).2 offered regarded entity identical purpose, surprising Senators Congressmen addressing themselves specifically direct remarks distinct Those discussing measure treated 'suit equity' 'criminal prosecution' referring tribunal, namely court. changed 1955 proceeding,' present language, amendment affirmatively shows affect suspend Thus, construing treating only. my judgment, counter 25 setting Appendix amendment, points something surprise me all: ready defendant, entirely unwilling hearings orders agencies hearings, findings, comparable doubt, come willing compel judges juries treat criminal, conducted protections afforded litigants. 26 reverse judgment. 27 APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DISSENTING. 28 THE ACT. Herewith illustration statements made about particularly interested whom took preparation sponsorship bill discussions place went House Senate. 30 Senator Walsh, spokesman Judiciary Committee, led fight version defended ground 'has opportunity try forms involved lawsuit. 13851. added.) Walsh added 'Here day He tried issue, question, tried, insist trial.' 13857. Opponents 'conclusive proposal never premise, implicit others, contemplated 5. Not once member version, findings admissible conclusive defendant's liability 31 arguing violate Constitution, again orders, courts: 32 'I want just word reference authorities attention Senate invited *. Nobody They lay down rule individual theretofore certificate recital board anything him.' 13856—13857. On hand, thought equally binding plaintiff. opposing idea, White argued: 33 'Then, President, said, burdensome enough bound jury particular So things possibly foresee influence decisions. produced 34 manner handled lawyers employed mind verdict yet, probably influences conclusions reached.' 13900. 35 Cummins said: 'But brought, 13850. 36 left conference back House, managers called defend changes charges elimination penalties emasculated bill. Chairman Webb Committee attempted describe proposed procedures strongest possible light. After reading vesting stated: 37 'Now, this: sue treble pleases, trust, stop practices take guilty 38 all. Some argue takes jurisdiction excludes individuals pursuing remedies. provides: 39 "No commission enforce wise relieve absolve person acts.' 40 'So remedies, invoked time.' 16274. 41 distinguished 'Government'—the applied—and Commission. believed suspended direction Attorney General. confirmed few moments exchange: 42 'Mr. HARDY. Under authority bring injunction parties? 43 'MR. WEBB. Yes. district attorneys injunction.' 16276. 44 Webb's Representative Floyd, managers, persuade strong: 45 'That unlawful corporation proceeded equity, allowed combination full offender. new remedy efficient remedy. acting citizens, prosecutes convicts litigant, nothing recover three-fold except prove amount injury trust corporation. 46 several remedies provided 2, 3, 7, enforced, respectively, Interstate Commerce Reserve Board.' 16319. 47 Another relevant following: 48 McKENZIE: If bill, feel believe last resort Supreme land? 49 VOLSTEAD. 50 McKENZIE. You good leave great inferior court? Yes.' 9079. 52 originally presented 'judgment States' prospective vigorously constitutionality 'day court.' debates proceeding: 53 SISSON. (D)oes gentleman determined raised States? 54 PROUTY. Why, not; Constitution expressly prohibits words, having trial jury. 55 point 56 By instituting tried. 57 mind, disposed so—we charge General—might cook directly defeat injured.' 9492. 58 Defenders proposition, 59 CULLOP. My Supposing collusive won outsider suit? According is. 60 FLOYD Arkansas 61 '* answer proposition ever comes enter acts, evil Republic, become useless justice mockery.' 9489. 62 arguably bringing scope phrase proceeding.' met opposition withdrawn. dealt equity,' reached Senate, Bryan moved strike read observed Reed, cover Culberson substitute adding or,' retaining equity.' withdrew broader Culberson's substitute. 13897—13898. 63 initially substantive sections, each penalty attached. All removed conference. Reed Missouri, repeatedly stripped force effectiveness: 64 'We end smooth easy road traveled years, finally innocuous, non-enforcible decree, vitalized affirmed propose impose penalty, levy fine, send jail, culprit preserve swag!' 15867. Had proponents obvious teeth 'culprit,' claimants able reclaim 'his swag,' times over. Neither challenging accuracy Reed's statement, heard floor, made. Nelson charged: 65 'Finally, cut out; things, say, 'You more.' Then delay appeal courts; what? issued, got away loot impunity.' 16325. 66 For examples 9079, 9169, 9488—9490, 9492, 9494—9495, 12789—12790, 13850—13851, 13856—13857, 13897 13898, 13900, 14262, 14328, 15867, 15948, 15950, 16003, 16044, 16046, 16149, 16154, 16274, 16281, 16319, AMENDMENT. reports detailed carefully make, absolutely intent amend hearings. H.R.Rep. 422, Sess.; Cong.Admin. News intended. example, 1951 Patman appeared subcommittee considering questioned deny Government. Wilson assured 'This doesn't law.' Keating, author commented: slight existing refers numbers. phraselogy 4. change.' Hearings H.R. 3408 Subcommittee Study Monopoly Power Judiciary, 82d Part 98—100. floor became Quigley 69 'It reporting procedural suggested uniform sole purpose.' 101 5131. 70 GOLDBERG, With deference, dissent. Court, ante, 321 that, recently 1054, 'whether agree, correctly applied test Brother BLACK demonstrated dissenting opinion, statutes applicable institution Cf. Welden, 377 95, 84 1082, 152. frustrates effectuates fail honor circumstance. considered interlocutory appeal. 1292(b) (1958 ed.). Esses here. During respondent respondent's theories recovery legal pleadings. Stat. 731, U.S.C 209, 1, 283, 15b 'Any 15a title forever commenced accrued. revived sections.' '(b) Whenever laws, including title, thereafter: Provided, whenever hereunder, suspension accrued.' Highland Supply Reynolds Metals 327 725 (C.A.8th Cir. 1964). 16(a) '(a) A heretofore hereafter violated thereto: testimony taken title.' Theatre Enterprises, Paramount Film Distributing 346 537, 74 257, 98 273 (1954). course, 'instituted States.' brings name sues sued own name. initiate agency. Here example view section, find unnecessary question.

Category: 7