Document: 76 L.Ed.2d 456 103 S.Ct. 2266 462 U.S. 122 BANKAMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Petitionersv.UNITED STATES. No. 81-1487. Argued Jan. 19, 1983. Decided June 8, Syllabus The fourth paragraph of § 8 the Clayton Act provides that "[n]o person at same time shall be a director in any two or more corporations, one which has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating than $1,000,000, engaged whole part commerce, other banks, banking associations, trust companies, common carriers," if such corporations are competitors. United States brought test cases, consolidated Federal District Court, against petitioners, certain bank holding mutual life insurance individuals who each served on board directors banks companies companies. It was stipulated interlocked compete interstate market for mortgage real estate loans. Government asserted interlocking directorates violated arguing "other banks" clause simply prevented overlapping regulation interlocks between separately regulated first three paragraphs 8. Court entered summary judgment statutory proscription applies only to neither is bank. Appeals reversed. Held: does not bar competing company. Pp. 126-140. (a) most natural reading language statute must all thus by its express terms prohibit nonbanking corporation. This reinforced both structure 128-130. (b) Great weight given contemporaneous interpretation challenged an agency charged with enforcement but over 60 years prior present made no attempt apply even though were widespread matter public record throughout period. Mere failure administrative agencies act sense binding lacks authority act, circumstances this case, Government's exercise power it now claims strongly suggests did read as granting power. Moreover, business community directly affected, enforcing agencies, Congress have way years, supporting conclusion intended interpreted according plain meaning. 130-133. (c) If doubt remains meaning statute, removed legislative history. evolution bill, along remarks committee floor, rebuts claim reach bank-nonbank 133-140. 656 F.2d 428 (9th Cir., 1981), William Simon, Washington, D.C., argued, petitioners. Edwin S. Kneedler, respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court: 1 question presented whether Section bars 2 * In 1975, these companion cases (now consolidated) ten five individuals. their respective four 3 asserts violate Act, 15 U.S.C. 19. relies, provides: 4 "No carriers subject regulate approved February fourth, eighteen hundred eighty-seven, been theretofore, virtue location operation, competitors, so elimination competition agreement them would constitute violation provisions antitrust laws." (Emphasis added). 5 short, forbids from serving simultaneously boards meet specifications, namely, least having worth they carriers. . ." 6 According Government, prohibits excludes general prohibition banks. argues purpose prevent Thus, interprets nonbanks, otherwise unregulated. Petitioners respond expressly involving scope 7 On cross-motions judgment, Northern California granted petitioners dismissed suits. 422 F.Supp. 686 (1976). held "a normal 'two banks' compels [A]n ordinary '[n]o [serve as] means prohibition." Id., 689-690. 9 Although saw need further factual inquiry light "clear language," id., 690, observed "confirmed Congressional interpretation, well history underlying section 8." 703. 10 A divided (CA9 1981). Unlike majority viewed ambiguous. stated could equally plausibly mean either "two none banks," "tw banks." 434. Relying chiefly view policy should corporations. 11 Appeals, petitioners' position left "gap" coverage Discerning nothing bearing applicability relied broad condemn "interlocking large corporations," 439, support leaving "loopholes." refer back preceding 8; nonbanks 8.1 12 We certiorari, --- ----, 102 2294, 73 1299 (1982), we reverse. II 13 1914 passed period when focusing perceived evils corporate bigness monopoly. President Wilson, example, had "trusts" core issue his 1912 campaign; followed up Pujo Committee investigation into investment trust. See generally, Travers, Interlocks Corporate Management Antitrust Laws, 46 Tex.L.Rev. 819, 824-829 (1968). seen debate per se antagonistic interest; many, including called legislation would, among things, ban kinds interlocks. condemned regardless relationship horizontal vertical; accomplished through sharing personnel, officers; achieved stock holdings indirect forms domination. See, e.g., S.Rep. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. (1914); Hearings Trust Legislation Before House Comm. Judiciary, 816, 818-820, 823, 925 (1914). Plainly, matters appropriate resolve. 14 However, enacted, considerably less comprehensive many proposals pressed upon Congress. Rather enacting scheme potential approached problem selectively, limiting classes regulation. Three organizations Act's concerning class different restraints. §§ 10; 19 20. regulates, prohibit, types various carrier supplier customer-relationship; geographic requirements. These wide range personnel interlocks, directors, officers, employees. concerns tha carriers"; shared kind interlock vertical interlock. pattern specific limited approach narrow presented. 16 starting point, always, statute. here corporation competes. unambiguous prohibiting self-evident 17 selectively regulates respect organizations: those covered 10. Viewed framework, than" exclude altogether consistent treatment "common carriers" clause. 18 dispute completely involved carrier; follow, logically, also Put another way, carrier." To consistent, bank." our view, strains words " something did. F.2d, 442-443. Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 807, 826, 100 2486, 2497, 65 532 (1980), rejected unreasonable word "filed" meanings separate subsections Similarly, reject contention phrase thing applied "banks" where modifies 20 supports interpretation. begins directorates: corporations." clauses, That is, corporations" satisfy additional Clearly, satisfied By own terms, "any one" None clauses contain similar language. Rather, written Had wished difficulty said explicitly 21 rejecting depart long-held giving great enforcement, Edwards' Lessee Darby, 25 (12 Wheat) 206, 210, L.Ed. 603 (1827). But come case attempting enforce accord what urges now. contrary, attempt, filing suit seeking voluntary resignations, period.2 find difficult believe Department Trade Commission, share Congress, oversees overlooked ignored pervasive open practice thought contrary law.3 22 true, course, "[a]uthority cannot evaporate lack exercise," FTC Bunte Brothers, Inc., 312 349, 352, 61 580, 582, 85 881 (1941); mere interpretation" act. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 586, 590, 77 872, 875-876, 1057 (1957). 23 "just established may shed extent conveyed language, want assertion presumably alert it, significant determining actually conferred." supra. 24 FPC Panhandle Eastern Pipeline 337 498, 513, 69 1251, 1260, 93 1499 (1949), "failure use long indicates us C mmission existed." under When court reaches practical construction year span, powerful reading. Here, moreover, affected years. wholly without significance members staffs about "does commercial financial institutions, savings small loan companies." Letter Rep. Wright Patman Hon. Arthur F. Burns, Chairman Reserve Board (June 1, 1970), reprinted Banking Reform 1971: H.R. 5700 Currency, 92d 1st 271 (1971).4 While views informed opinion5 26 surprising half century literally thousands citizens world reliance universally reassured indicated conduct lawful. brushes aside, saying effect will bring suits resign within reasonable time. Tr. Oral Arg. 30-31. elect "amnesty" nonetheless carry stigma sorts violators federal laws. Equally, perhaps important, persons face possible civil liability unknown amounts, cannot, purport to, render immune. 30. arguable wise counsels permitting implemented crabbed accordance long. changes economic factors considerations counsel extension categories implicated here, simple say clearly. 27 re oved relevant went stages: (1) initial "tentative bill," (2) bill introduced Clayton, (3) Senate amendments, (4) final Joint Conference Committee, enacted law Act. rebut 28 tentative proposed sections dealing 1577-1579 (1914) ("Trust Hearings"). prohibited officer railroads specified 4, precursor current presumed Sherman existence provided, pertinent part: 29 "That if, fact conclusive evidence there exists corporations; are, been, conclusively combination restraint foreign commerce. 30 Extensive hearings bill." Louis D. Brandeis, then advisor testified inadequate he generally Hearings, supra, 681-688. Carlin objected "We attempted do bill. deals railroads, industrials." 681. Brandeis responded "as you your linking together industrial competitors; Ibid. 31 921-925. He argued since "banking commerce." 924. turned concern doing place" be, prohibited: 32 "Mr. Brandeis: Now, I used term? term 'financial concern' includes member national reserve system 33 Volstead: Would include company? 34 And company also. seems me usual place place, ought included (emphasis 35 Two facts emerge exchange. First, dealt (banks, industrials) ways. exclusively Second, understood concern[s] 36 At hearings, 15657, 1931-1952, ev ntually paralleled third (which became 8) provided 37 "[N]o [the Interstate Commerce Act], 38 report "[t]his paragraphs, relates particular described, application belonging named herein." Report 627, (1914), 1970. related solely "eligibility interstate-railroad ibid; second employees companies," 1971; third, "industrial concerned "the eligibility commerce," ibid. Nothing deal serve 39 debates 15657 confirm intend During 9, Cullop explained paragraphs: 40 [industrial paragraph] refers some reference business. 41 Carlin: 42 Cullop: Yes. relate banking. institutions kind, whatsoever business." 51 Cong.Rec. 9604 43 sent Senate. There, regulating met considerable opposition ultimately eliminated Judiciary. explained: 44 "A amendment strikes out entire 8]. proposing believed properly belongs domain rather commerce direction just amendments acts, Comptroller Currency Board." 48 45 change all: "The provision relating changed amended respect." reported committee. Given Senate's expressed intent untouched, involv ng iron differences bills, restored added companies" 8.) explanation addition clarified already case: 47 supported floor Of spoke Mann original version (section 3, 15657) adding therefore materially paragraph: "I know vital before right basic things findings on, prepared shape. conferees, longer controlled competition." 16270 49 response, Reps. Sherley Webb misconstrued originally House. that: 50 "[the] never because took care idiotic associations referring order make perfectly plain, inserted 'other associations' carriers, section." 16271. echoed Webb's argument ever 16271-16272. concluded: 52 "To province conference clear touching directorates, ¶ 8] confined stretch situation." 16272. 53 reviewing colloquy, remembered voted House, while it. 9911 greater accorded proper Mann. NLRB Fruit Vegetable Packers, 377 58, 66, 84 1063, 1068, 129 (1964). Speaker overruled Mann's point accepted Sherley's Finally, Member correctly agreed directorate paragraph. 54 dissent argue "sole ['other amendment] bank-bank governed paragraph." Post, 145. ignores minimum size requirements comparable. As measured basis "deposits, profits" $5,000,000 more; "capital, $1,000,000 regard "deposits." Stat. 730, 732-733. There reason assume comparable $1,000,000. dovetail manner suggested dissent. 55 speculates, post, 146-147, number Congressmen mistakenly Nonetheless, chose problems concentration involved. bound choice; rewrite based notions policy. 56 Reversed. 57 POWELL decision case. 58 WHITE, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 59 primary (the "competing provision"), nonbanks. holds not, thereby exempting species whatsoever, undisputably serious anticompetitive consequences policies am quite sure result, Subject exemptions presently relevant, exemption applicable single bank, contend, asserts. Both sides argue, straight faces, constructions face, agrees solemnly proclaims, ante, 128, self-evident, requires directorates. With deference, escapes how litigants can seriously maintain unambiguous, side's significantly "more natural" other's. my literal wording far dispositive. Consider following analogy: states automobiles, Fords." plainly owning Chevrolet Ford. possible, plausible interpret ownership Fords easily naked insufficient guidance Congress' true intent. necessary consider 62 considering materials, important keep mind stage enactment process. proscribe variety bans 63 contained proviso, provide banks.1 After Senate, deleted kept form House.2 adopted rely. 64 unwilling accept deletion conferees reinclude banning few minor modifications. inserted, time, proviso provision.3 discussion, but, brief highly heavily controversy arose raised alleging rule text houses agreed. new drastically excluding purview: 66 "[W]hen beyond jurisdiction them, 67 Webb, defend action. work material substantial provision, "without inte locking Id. described House's provisions, them. continued: 68 put proviso] clear; 8]; [sic ]" added.) concurred assessment. 16272.4 70 explanation. noted conceded substantive provision. remarked, however, appreciate import paragraph, "they do." Then, discussion "Sugar Trust" company, Steel, hat competed implied, although state directly, conferees' 71 opportunity that, "drag subjects legislation," struck exceed authority, like report, vote 16273. 72 strenuously agrees, 137-139, exchange shows, say, confirmation implicit convinced, apparently characterization opponents deemed persuasive critical bill's supporters characterized making alteration sole languag touch statements men familiar surrounding construe clause, still Some Members assumed competitor "engaged For then-prevailing doctrine Paul Virginia, Wall. 168, 357 (1868), considered Furthermore, uncertain itself Cf. Nathan Louisiana, How. 73, 81, 993 (1850) (an "individual uses money credit buying selling bills exchange, realizes profit, commerce.").5 74 Court's recent laws anticipated result. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 533, 556-559, 1162, 1175-1177, 88 1440 (1944); Philadelphia National Bank, 374 321, 336, n. 12, 83 1715, 1727, 915 (1963). show unequivocal desire legislate area previously declared power," Underwriters, U.S., 556-557, S.Ct., 1175-1176, merit 75 remaining bulk cited parties opinion, little relevance. cites numerous congressmen Wilson denouncing general, competitors industry particular. too really support. connection issue. counter witnesses during supposedly indicate interlocks.6 seem very helpful close inspection shows proviso. reasons mentioned above, untenable cover "industrial" "in import. appears early taken context. They ontext discussions interlocks.7 Accordingly, truly demonstrates exempt coverage. inescapable add equation construed narrowly, see Union Labor Life Ins. Co. Pireno, 3002, 647 (1982); FMC Seatrain Lines, 411 726, 733, 1773, 1778-1779, 620 (1973), strong effects run spirit Indeed, plurality nor identified logical why wanted unlike every totally Hence, convinced creates loophole create." Naftalin, 441 768, 777, 99 2077, 2083, 624 (1979).8 III 78 appealing favor comes history, action notes, 8-9, authority. concedes, n and/or Commission past (and fact, so), hardly most, entitled degree inconsistent previous view.9 79 stare decisis. Agencies frequently adopt then, later, view. courts "changes course," congressional intent.10 until recently formally other, reveals course correct one. adhere excuse ignoring affirm Appeals.11 "competitors" 428, 450-451 disposition found "approximately 40% directors." 686, 691 American Council Insurance, 79% 550 banks; 79%, comprised average 33% companies' boards. Brief Insurance Amicus Curiae 3. likely markets, hence Another indication longstanding 1950 specifically Interlocking Directorates (1951). Commission's later decision, Perpetual Savings Loan Association, 90 F.T.C. 608, vacated grounds, 94 401 (1979), (& Supp IV) 45, undermine earlier analysis Accord Staff Subcomm. Domestic Finance Control Commercial Banks Among Financial Institutions, 90th Sess., (Subcomm. Print 1967), Their Activities: Emerging Influence Economy, 881, 925-926 1968) companies"); Management, 89th 25-26 (1965) banks"). also, Advisory Controller Future (1962); 1982 Duke L.J. 938, 939, 949. E. Kintner, Legislative History Laws Related Statutes 1733 (1978) (reprinting Whole 2, 1914). 2429 Sept. H.R.Rep. 1168, (Sept. 25, 1914), 2456, 2458-2459. commented hold inclusion name instance excluded and, addition, [competitors of] 16272 134, "argued" p. 924 (Trust Hearings). "possible theory," "not yet sustained Supreme Court." 923. Graham disagreed Brandeis' argument. E.g., think grave You failed feature." 823 (S. Untermyer). 921-925 (L. Brandeis); (Rep. Cullop) (competing "relates whatever business."). 134-137. absence cites, 133-139, advances textual slightest. states, 129, exempts carrier-noncarrier manner. largely academic, examples situations which, "competitor" noncarrier. event, day (ICA) carrier-carrier Commission. 9881, 9910-9912 1920. (Supp. V) 11322. exclusive, clarify ICA exclusive Bowsher Merck 13, 1587, (1983) (WHITE, J., concurring dissenting part); General Electric Gilbert, 429 125, 142-143, 97 401, 411-412, 343 (1976); Morton Ruiz, 415 199, 236-237, 1055, 1075, 270 (1974). Generix Drug Corp., 1298, 198 (approving despite interpretation); J. Weingarten, 420 251, 95 959, 171 (1975) (same); Seven-Up Bottling 344 344, 287, (1953) San Francisco, 310 16, 31-32, 749, 757, 1050 (1940) (same). often qualification makes change, set forth meaningful judicial review possible. Atchison, T. S.F.R. Wichita Bd. Trade, 412 800, 808, 2367, 2375, 350 (1973) (plurality opinion); K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 20:11 (2d ed. 1983). Under alternative holding, addressing length. Suffice inclined agree subsidiary closely treated entity purposes.

Category: 7