Legal Document

345 U.S. 629 73 Supreme Court Reporter 894 97 L.Ed. 1303 UNITED STATESv.W. T. GRANT CO. et al. Number 532. Argued and Submitted April 9, 1953. Decided May 25, Mr. Victor or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Kramer, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Eustace Seligman, New York City, appellees John M. Hancock Abe Fortas, appellee Kroger company Harry Wiggins, S. Kresge Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 For first time since enactment Clayton Act in 1914 is called upon to consider § 8's prohibitions against interlocking corporate directorates.1 The Government appeals from judgments dismissing civil actions brought three pairs corporations which he served as a director, W. Grant Kress & Co., Sears Roebuck Bond Stores, Inc., Jewel Tea Incorporated Alleging that size competitive relationship each set companies interlocks within reach 8, complaints asked court order particular terminated enjoin future violations 8 by individual defendants. Soon after were filed, resigned boards Kress, Bond. Disclosing resignations affidavit, all defendants then moved dismiss moot. Treated motions summary judgment,2 they granted District Judge. His concluded there not 'the slightest threat will attempt any activity violation (if have violated it already) * *.' 112 F.Supp. 336, 338. this direct appeal under 2 Expediting Act, 32 Statutes-at-Large 823, amended, 62 989, 15 U.S.C.(Supp. V) 29, United States Code Annotated KF65 U5 contending cases rendered moot Hancock's was an abuse discretion trial refuse injunctive relief. Appellees suggest, without arguing point extenso, judgment should be affirmed because 11 vests exclusive enforcement powers Federal Trade Commission.3 Section does authorize Commission enforce 8. But inference administrative jurisdiction intended falls before plain words 15: 'The several district courts are hereby invested with prevent restrain KF62 25. And spoken Congress' design provide scheme dual Act. Alkali Export Association versus States, 1945, 325 196, 208, 65 1120, 1127, 89 1554; Standard Oil California Stations 1949, 337 293, 310, note 13, 69 1051, 1060, 93 1371. Appellees' failure press denotes its merits. properly entertained suits. 3 Both sides agree abstract proposition voluntary cessation allegedly illegal conduct deprive tribunal power hear determine case, i.e., make case Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 1897, 166 290, 17 540, 41 1007; Walling Helmerich Payne, 1944, 323 37, 11, 29; Hecht Bowles, 321 321, 64 587, 88 754. A controversy may remain settled such circumstances, Aluminum America, Cir., 148 Reporter, 2nd Series 416, 448, e.g., dispute over legality challenged practices. supra; Local 74 Brotherhood Carpenters, etc., National Labor Relations Board, 1951, 341 707, 715, 71 966, 970, 95 1309. defendant free return his old ways.4 This, together public interest having practices settled, militates mootness conclusion. supra, at pages 309, 546, 547. say has become means entitled dismissal matter right, Board General Motors Corp., 1950, 179 221. rightly refused grant powerful weapon law enforcement.5 4 nevertheless if can demonstrate 'there no reasonable expectation wrong repeated.'6 burden heavy one. Here told longer existed disclaimed intention revive them. Such profession suffice although one factors considered determining appropriateness granting injunction now-discontinued acts. 5 Along court's relief survives discontinuance conduct. Goshen Mfg. Hubert Atlantic Myers 1916, 242 202, 37 105, 61 248. purpose violations, Swift 1928, 276 311, 326, 48 314, 72 587 and, course, utilized even showing past wrongs. moving party must satisfy needed. necessary determination exists some cognizable danger recurrent violation, something more than mere possibility serves keep alive. chancellor's decision based on circumstances; necessarily broad strong made reverse it. To bona fides expressed intent comply, effectiveness cases, character violations. 6 facts relied show these: directorates viewed distinct terminate them until suit filed despite five years attempts persuade him their illegality, express refusal concede question statute promise commit similar future. 7 Were we sitting court, might persuasive. basis Judge's decision.7 In think fails. An proclivity violate need inferred fact charged, particularly only recently attempted systematic 8.8 dealing who follows adjudicated others. material Judge supposed persuasion could easily support during Department trying directorships. Government's remedy plain. Postponement indicates doubt prosecutor's part much intransigence defendant's. How contrition expected hard us say. This surely better addressed court. same said limited disclaimer intent. Assuming joined defendants,9 conclusion refusing applies fortiori case. None appeared engaged alleged violation. affidavits indicated these ignorant suits filed. Indeed emphasis branch placed Hancock. circumstances compelling further speaks itself. 9 Essentially, claim deprived issue. objection raised procedure handled. Of course been employed 'genuine issue fact'. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 56. However, had dismiss, elected file countervailing amend complaint stated oral argument truth defendants' questioned. frame factual dispute, left complaint, relevant paragraph reads: '16. threatened continue aforesaid unless prayed herein granted.' (Emphasis added.) violation(s),' specific interlocks, voluntarily resume negatived oath. As prayer enjoined other those specifically charged. decide significant about existence threat. 10 We conclude that, moot, demonstrated award Moreover, dismissals 'would bar new possible arise future.' affirmed. Affirmed. 12 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 13 Monopoly restraints trade sometimes products devices ingenious minds men. Sometimes follow blunt involved acquisition assets competitor—a way growth monopoly decisions given impetus encouragement. See especially Columbia Steel 334 495, 68 1107, 92 1533. More subtle arrangements between directorates. accomplish disastrous consequences, Brandeis pointed out forty ago. Interlocking compete stifle competition. Or use Brandeis, practice substitutes pull privilege push manhood.'1 entwined relations stuff concentration financial American industry built maintained. gave example:2 14 'They, bankers, control railroads, controlling able sale securities. Being bought securities price fixing fixing. They sold securities, insurance exercise directors. got money buy railroads through great banking institutions, then, capacity purchase corporations, like Corporation, what needed, Corporation again, so endless chain.' web woven tie many industries, companies, houses into vast friendly alliance takes edge off 16 That condition aggravated here. present indirect. director sets which, state pleadings us, assume competitive. pressure proceedings dispose here professionals whose technique enterprises building empires fully developed well known long crying evils trust.' partner investment firm Lehman Bros. 1940 testified when did financing 'traditional practice' ask representation board directors.3 It therefore seems me Judge, faced here, would want know first, how bankers empires; second, own empire; third, effect banker competition tied 18 avoid merits little, any, relevancy concerned house indulge practice. 19 issues never weighed Court's ruling presumption validity various considered. judgment. disposed mootness, now conceded erroneous. go back consideration nature extent 'elimination competition' meaning Act.4 Unless much, position judge service do. carry Woodrow Wilson's policy prevented 'those affect partners masters whole field business.' Message, Joint Session Houses Congress, Jan. 20, 1914. Sec. '* No person shall two capital, surplus, undivided profits aggregating $1,000,000, commerce, theretofore, virtue business location operation, competitors, elimination agreement constitute provisions antitrust laws. *' 38 730, 19, 19. 12(b)(6), 56, 28 '§ 11. Authority compliance sections two, three, seven, eight persons respectively subject thereto vested where applicable commerce exercised follows: 'Whenever reason believe violating serve Attorney stating charges respect, containing notice hearing *. If being violated, report writing, findings facts, cause requiring cease desist divest itself stock, share assets, held rid directors chosen contrary seven be, manner fixed order. (15 U.S.C., Supp. V, 21.)' Cf. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packet-Fahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 466, 36 212, 60 387. 'When shown continuing entered conspiracy violative laws, abandoned clear proof. duty beware efforts defeat protestations repentance reform, abandonment timed anticipate suit, probability resumption.' Oregon State Medical Society, 1952, 343 333, 690, 695, 96 978. page 448. Gypsum 340 76, 89, 160, 169, review anti-trust decree provisions. Directorships After 35 Years, 59 Yale L.J. 1266. understood deciding whether or, reasons, statute. Endless Chain, Harpers' Weekly, Dec. 6, 1913, Page quoted Lief, Guide Modern World, 111. testimony Hearings, H.R.Committee Judiciary, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Trust Legislation, vol. 2, 922, op. cit., 1, 113. Temporary Economic Committee, 76th 3d Pt. 24, 12400. Sears, 111 614, decided 28, 1953, ruled Congress 'to nip bud incipient laws removing opportunity temptation directorates.'

Classification Label: 7