Court Opinion

ID: 9418576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:32:31.233596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:06.247569
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brandeis,
dissenting in part.
In my opinion, the purpose of § 7 of the Clayton Act was not, as stated by the Court, merely “ to prevent continued holding of the stock and the peculiar evils incident thereto.” It was also to prevent the peculiar evils resulting therefrom. The institution of a proceeding before the Commission under § 7 does not operate, like an injunction, to restrain a company from acquiring the assets of the controlled corporation by means of the stock held in violation of that section. If, in spite of the commencement of such a proceeding, the company took a transfer of the assets, the Commission could, I assume, require a retransfer of the assets, so as to render effective the order of divestiture of the stock. I see no reason why it should not, likewise, do this although the company succeeded in securing the assets of the controlled corporation before *564the Commission instituted a proceeding. Support for this conclusion may be found in § 11, which provides for action by the Commission whenever it “ shall have reason to believe that any person is violating or has violated any of the provisions” of the earlier sections. (Italics ours.)
I think that the decrees in Nos. 213 and 231 should be affirmed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Stone join in this dissent.