Document: 342 U.S. 353 72 S.Ct. 306 96 L.Ed. 394 HUGHESv.UNITED STATES. No. 86. Argued Jan. 7, 1952. Decided Feb. 4, Mr. T. A. Slack, Houston, Tex., for appellant. Philip Marcus, Washington, D.C., appellee. Opinion of the Court by Justice BLACK, anounced DOUGLAS. 1 A three-judge District has construed certain provisions a Sherman Act consent decree as compelling sale moving picture stocks owned appellant Hughes. This case is properly here on appeal from an order entered to compel sale. 15 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 29, U.S.C.A. 29. 2 These anti-trust proceedings were originally brought United States against Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation and other producers, distributors, exhibitors. From Court's judgment in both Government defendants appealed. We affired part reversed part. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 131, 68 915, 92 1260. remanded leaving it free consider whether was necessary require production distribution companies divest themselves all ownership interest business exhibiting pictures. Thereafter containing detailed complete divorcement R.K.O.'s production-distribution assets its theater assets. To accomplish this, R.K.O. form two new holding companies: one, 'New Picture Company,' take over subsidiaries engaged distribution; other, Theater own control which operated theaters. Upon formation companies, be dissolved. Former stockholders become owners capital stock companies. 3 factor considered connection with this that Howard R. Hughes, here, 24% common No person or corporation much 1%. He government representatives agreed terms meet situation. Their agreement embodied decree, becoming section V. set out below,1 center present controversy. It provides Hughes may 'either' (A) sell his one newly formed 'or' (B) deposit such court-designated trustee under voting trust remain force until shall have sold chose not any stock, he trust, approved court order. Later, motion sought forcing Hughes' stock. Without evidence findings fact, protests, amended appointing providing 'if trusteed been disposed February 20th, 1953, dispose within years thereafter.' Appellant urges error so summary manner. 4 First. The argues V should read reasonable time. hold language imposes no requirement. reading either/or wording would make most persons believe choice different alternatives. if first 'alternative' second also Moreover, provided that, did but place 'until sold' ordinarily mean Court, could decide sold. Nor can inference drawn authorizing provide trust's general 'terms conditions, including compensation trustee.' cannot support empowered deprive either expressly granted 5 Arguing broader front than mere V, urges: must interpreted achieve purposes entire decree; basic purpose exhibition companies; consistently left types true now contends large block endangers independence each. Evidence might show indispensable competition preserved. However, parties their plan neutralize evils ownership. Whatever justification there hereafter we think fair requirement into supported reliance interpretation. Consequently court's command effected substantial modification original decree. 6 Second. finds change reference (1) reserving jurisdiction amend, (2) inherent equity powers court. entertain doubt concerning power after proper hearing. When formerly phases, 1260, had occasion point some where preserve prevent monopoly. guiding principles justify compulsory divestment individual. But adequate hearing issue Neither when nor fact made As previously pointed include him sell. At every stage objected without included judicial determination based it. 7 In these circumstances enter 8 Reversed. 9 JACKSON CLARK took consideration decision case. 'V. represents owns approximately 24 percent Corporation. Within period year date hereof, either: 'A. Dispose holdings New Company, elect, purchaser purchasers who are defendant herein controlled affiliated cause; 'B. Deposit designated shares Company whereby possess entitled exercise rights shares, right execute proxies consents respect thereto. Such thereafter herein, upon transfer automatically terminate. trustee, prescribed Court. During receive dividends distributions account proceeds thereof. 'For evidencing bound individually consented entry binding agents employees.'

Category: 7