Document: 386 U.S. 361 87 S.Ct. 1088 18 L.Ed.2d 151 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK OF HOUSTON et al. Appellant, v. PROVIDENT Nos. 914, 972. Argued Feb. 20 and 21, 1967. Decided March 27, Donald F.Turner, Washington, D.C., for appellant. David T. Searls, Houston, Tex., Eugene J. Metzger, appellees. Frederic L. Ballard, Philadelphia, Pa., Joseph O'Malley, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These civil suits were filed by United States under § 7 Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 64 1125, 15 U.S.C. 18, to prevent two bank mergers—one in Texas between First City National Bank Houston Southern one Pennsylvania Provident Central Penn Bank, both Philadelphia. 2 The Comptroller Currency approved mergers Merger Act 1966, 80 7, 12 s 1828(c) (1964 ed., Supp. II). thereupon brought these respective District Courts intervened them. dismissed complaints. No. 914 (unreported); 972, 262 F.Supp. 397. appealed, 32 823, 29, we noted probable jurisdiction, 385 1023, 1034, 754, 778, 17 672, 682. I. 3 It is suggested that complaints are defective they fail state actions do not even mention that, therefore, cases should be remanded allow Government amend 4 1966 provides '(a)ny action antitrust laws' shall within a specified time (12 (7)(A)); it also specifies standards applied court judicial proceeding challenging merger 'on ground * constituted violation any laws other than section (the Sherman Act)' 1828(c)(7)(B); immunity from such an attack if those met. Section 1828(c)(8) '(f)or purposes (§ 1828(c)), term 'antitrust means Act), Acts pari materia.' (Emphasis added.) Thus, on its anticompetitive effects laws. Once laws, new defense or justification merger's proponents 'that proposed transaction clearly outweighed public interest effect meeting convenience needs community served.' 1828(c)(5)(B). There no indication bottomed rather What apparent Congress intended available once had been determined would have effects, judged normally actions. Government's failure base does constitute defect pleadings. Nor fatal, for, see, offsetting 'convenience needs,' 1828(c)(5)(B), must pleaded proved defenders merger. II. 5 An application approval was made pursuant which he approve 'whose country may substantially lessen competition, tend create monopoly, manner restraint trade, unless (he) finds Requests Attorney General Federal Reserve Board 1828(c)(4) their views submitted reports serious effects. nonetheless it. 6 same procedure followed case, adverse reports. Nonetheless this also. And, said, instituted enjoin Act. condemns where 'the acquisition competition.' did change standard machinery obtaining prior preliminary expression but added additional Comptroller. 1828(c)(5)(B) says, already noted, 'may competition' responsible agency, case Comptroller, 'finds anti-competitive And subsection goes say: 'In every agency take into consideration financial managerial resources future prospects existing institutions, 8 1828(c)(7)(B) attacking violates identical with' banking agencies apply. 1828(c)(7)(A) states action, review de novo issues presented.' 9 commencement courts 'shall stay effectiveness agency's otherwise specifically order.' around provisions interplay with present controversy turns. 10 question whether burden proof defendant banks establish exception Government. We think plain carry burden. That general rule claims benefits prohibition statute. Trade Commission Morton Salt Co., 334 37, 44—45, 68 822, 827—828, 92 L.Ed. 1196. House Report (No. 1221, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. Code Congressional Administrative News, p. 1862) makes clear norm mergers, exception: '* bill acknowledges principle laws—that prohibited—applies banks, permits shown given so beneficial served permit it.' Id., at 3—4. 11 sponsor finally enacted, Congressman Patman, flatly stated: 'It establishing needs' seeking merge; when say mean preponderance evidence.' 112 Cong.Rec. 2333—2334 (Feb. 8, 1966). therefore disagree lower contrary. 13 This problem is, course, subtly merged Comptroller's decision category administrative rulings sustained persuaded unsupported supported substantial evidence. 14 product powerful contending forces, each aftermath claimed more victory deserved, leaving abated resolved courts. So far concerned, only say. Prior necessary. Yet later them never stopped consider what weight, any, determination case. See Philadelphia 374 321, 83 1715, 915; Nat. & Trust Co. 376 665, 84 1033, 1. Traditionally involving regulated industries, presumptive weight decision, simple reason put different axis familiar procedure. Radio Corporation America, 358 334, 79 457, 354; El Paso Natural Gas 651, 1044, 12; supra; supra. found designed differently earlier obtained. In fact, directed apply.' 1828(c)(7)(B). language express conventional standard, i.e., latter instance function determine law has violated, while court's ascertain whether, absent error statutory construction, support 16 took course here. Indeed 1828(c)(7)(A). argued use word 'review' 'trial' indicates limited scope action. words might conceivably used interchangeably. critical seem us 'de novo' 'issues They make independent issues. Chairman Committee drafted speaking review, said 'completely own challenged set forth paragraph 5(B) bill.' He 'court give special supervisory issue.' 2335 momentum precedents direction. For 'is lightly implied.' California Power Commission, 369 482, 485, 82 901, 903, 54. grant power arbitrary, capricious, evidence, long step Moreover, informal, hearings customary sense having held (United supra, 351, 1734) none being required assume revolutionary innovation making well nigh conclusive, though hearing record created. find reasons persuasive conclusive. But judgment, Comptroller's, determines legal. practice Act; cannot purpose part rule. conclusion raise constitutional questions perform nonjudicial tasks. 'rule reason,' prevalent field (see, e.g., Chicago States, 246 231, 242, 62 683), administered A competition meaning task. area served,' now focus related, perhaps remotely, failing-company doctrine, known cases. Diebold, Inc., 654, 993, 176. appraisal competitive factors grist mill. See, 357—367, 1738 1743. left large planning agencies. standard; one.1 If adverse, then excused served' outweigh see problems bringing competence. here reason' issue. As seen timely dissolved stays dismissing suits. 19 Our remand will direct continue until below completed appeal had. mandatory all circumstances. frivolous complaint presume infrequent, essential remedies exhausted. caption '(t)o eliminate necessity dissolution banks.' not, emergency conditions, consummated 30 days after order enable commence 1828(c)(6), which, apart situations, started approval, legislative history replete references difficulty unscrambling merger.2 normal maintenance status quo litigation run lest consummation place process abhorred Reversed. 21 CLARK provides, seen, pointed out omits phrase 'in line commerce' meant commercial longer considered effective establishes 'a market test measurable larger realities.' reach intimate nor merits justifications urged support. All except procedural ones treated reserved. System testified preceded enactment recreate formerly existed (N)o matter how feel about taken first instance, there turning back. To unscramble resulting poses customers community.' Hearings S. 1698 related bills before Subcommittee Domestic Finance Banking Currency, 1st Sess., 11. president American Bankers Association declared "(u)nmerging' operated single unit nightmarish abstract.' Senate 63. Senator Robertson stated, 'you dealing physical impossibility,' gets hurt,' divestiture attempted 4. Proxmire spoke agony inequity loss, disruption economy community, unscramble.' 202.

Category: 7