Anti-trust Law Case Study
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
Published: Tue, 31 Jul 2018
Landmark: Antitrust Case Study
Question 1: Write a 100- word abstract of the case, including the date of the case
The essay gives a brief analysis and review of a case in which the government of the United States led to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the defense of the claim appeal 384 U.S. competition 270 presented by the U.S. government against VON Grocery Co. (Von) in 1966 in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California No. 303. Duration was March 22, 1966 and the delivery of a verdict was the May 31, 1966. It was in favor of the defendant. This just reminded demand, government regulators were ignoring situations that occur within its jurisdiction. It was despite his knowledge of the changing developments in market structures that controlled processes. Government regulators failed to switch to a relaxed mood compared to previous legislative procedures necessary reacted to the threats and opportunities of his time. As a result, this led to the prevention of unfair trade practices or disposal of similar economic activities of small-scale business.
Key words: VON’S GROCERY CO, 384 U.S. 270, Shopping Bag Food Stores and 7 of the Clayton Act.
Question 2: Describe the provision of the US Antirust Law invoked to judge the presence of anti-competitive behavior or potential of for moving the industry in that direction.
The 1960 merger of Von Grocery Company with competitor Shopping Bag Food Stores (Shopping Bag) whose locations are in Los Angeles, California violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act (n. P Thomson Reuter). Its amendment in 1950 regulates the reasonable termination through the prohibition of mergers and acquisitions, which decreased competition. Even after a new amendment in 1980, remains the main reference point for antitrust law mergers that threatened the United States (Fox & Fox).
Question 3: Describe the basis for the ruling and action that pertain to all OR some of the following factors: The extent and trend in competition and expected in the future: Industry Structure and trend and projection for the future [based on the past, mostly]; CR4, CR8 and HHI, specially in cases of mergers.
The claim of the United States had other modifications as support for their arguments. They were the 1950 amendment to Section 7 of the Celler-Kefauver and Congress sought to preserve competition for small businesses. Was also intended to help companies focus. The court was the agent that was against large companies that use concentrations in markets with increasing centralization of business. He succeeded in divesting after United States v. Philadelphia National. . Bank, 374 U.S. 321 Celler-Kefauver 362 Anti-Merger Act 1950 as amended provides relevant information:
“That no company engaged in commerce … shall acquire all or part of the assets of another company also engaged in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any part of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. “
Question 4: Describe the “conduct” in question that has been considered “anticompetitive:”Determine if the defendant had used an anticompetitive Price Strategy and explain how. Likewise, describe any Non-price Strategies the defendant had used and describe how.
In investing 233 F. Supp. 976 Richard A. Posner was counsel for the United States. Your tips help were Attorney General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, James J. Coyle and John F. Hughes. The defense attorney was William W. Alsup. Your tips help Warren M. Christopher and were William W. Vaughn. As an interested party, the National Association of Retail Grocers of the United States Attorney Bison was Henry J., Jr., as amicus curiae, urging affirmance. MR. JUSTICE BLACK was the judge in the case and give judgment. The date of the original application was March 25, 1960. March 28, 1960, the District Court did not grant the motion of the Government for a restraining order against Von Grocery Company. The latter wanted to acquire tangible capital around the Shopping Bag Food Stores, and the ruling was that not violate the terms of demand.
It was a backdoor way of recognizing the merger and showing favoritism to the accused prior to final judgment. The main argument of the defense was that a company was protecting the other from the state of collapse. They merged to protect a stronger competitor. 374 U.S. 321, 362 was the claim that prohibiting such mergers. There were bank loans may have had access and filing for bankruptcy as a financial coverage. The company achieved this when it was about to collapse. He managed to regroup with the help of government agencies and private financial consultants.
Question 5: Describe the effect of the defendant’s “conduct” on other firms (or the main rival) in the industry.
Von was the third largest grocery market in the retail area Los Angeles on sales while the shopping bag of food was number six in 1958. Their 1960 joint sales rose 7.5% an annual output of two and a half million. Your Los Angeles market seemed too small part of their market to the government to fight. However, if the top ten companies had double combined, their total market share could have been about a third of the retail market of Los Angeles. To be fair to these stores, which had begun as the outgoing neighborhood store many Americans of his generation knew. Ten of the previous twelve years to the merger, the number of stores has increased to a little more than twice their number. The other positive numbers include increased sales and market share. Its merger positioned the number two supermarket chains in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the discovery of individual owners tennis shops in Los Angeles dropped by nearly two-fifths. In 1963, the numbers continued to decline.
The government witnesses lacked a thorough analysis of the facts and figures that the defense had in its possession. For example, from 1949 until 1958, nine of the top 20 competitors chains came into possession of 126 stores smaller rivals. An important defense witness gave details of previous acquisitions and mergers from 1954 to 1961. Apparently they were in the top 10 stores in Los Angeles. You might consider this as an ordinary person and discriminatory legal action. They should also have ground The nine competitors target rivals for smaller parties to legal action. However, the union of the two powers of financial market was a threat to government control in the area of â€‹â€‹Los Angeles. The government reported data in its reply, the Federal Trade Commission prepared.
Question 6: Describe the initial legal action taken against or in-favor of the defendant.
The initial legal action taken against the defendant is that the US government accused Von’s Grocery Company of violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act because it was an attempting to create a monopoly. The company appealed and the District Court ruled in its favour. Also, it is important to mention that the government made accusations against the company because it wanted to purchase a smaller competitor in the retail grocery market that was called Shopping Bag Food Stores.
Question 7: Describe any subsequent legal action in the case (such as the Supreme Court), if any.
Once the case was resolved there was no subsequent action taken. The decision on the case was repealed by the District Court and it was possible for Von’s Grocery Company to merge with, and subsequently absorb, Shopping Bag Food Stores.
Question 8: Carefully describe how the model of Structure-Conduct-Performance has been applied in the case under consideration. [The weight for this question is 40% of the grade.]
The history of the struggle against mergers in the United States began in 1890. At that time, Congress passed the Sherman Act to prevent monopolies. Distrust of Americans back to the founding of the country. Unfortunately, did not protect the smaller companies businessman larger monopolistic pressures. In 1897, the Court ruled that the U.S. government against Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U.S. 290, 323. In [384 U.S. 270, 275], the Sherman Act did not protect the small businessman. Congressional approval in 1914, 7 of the Clayton Act allowed the merger of corporations through the purchase of shares of its competitors. By contrast, business people find a loophole and bought his opponents assets. A blow to the fight against the Clayton Act device came with the endorsement of Judge Brandeis, Taft chief justice and judges Holmes and Stone in 1926. As a result, there was a reduction in the number of large companies.
The action was in 1950 Congress adopted the Celler-Kefauver Anti-Merger Act. Representative Celler and Senator Kefauver main reference was 384 U.S. lawmakers 270, 276 for the period 1940-1947. They used the Brown Shoe Co. v United States, 370 U.S. 294, 315 to argue their points. They and other members of Congress had the same concerns. In contrast, 7 of the Clayton Act had stamps in their lagoon and extending its coverage using 384 U.S. 270, 277. Evacuation This involved mergers between competitors and stop all instances of mergers.
The U.S. v National Philadelphia. Banking, led to Amendment 7 to cancel the anti-competitive tendencies. 384 U.S. 270, 279 is another case of reference that allowed the passage of the Celler-Kefauver Act. In United States v. El Paso Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 662 defendants El Paso Gas Co. were notified of antitrust charges and declined to postpone divestment from the beginning. Moreover, these two other similar cases of United States v. du Pont & Co., 366 U.S. 316; United States v. Alcoa, 377 U.S. 271, 281 are pre-trial demand 384 U.S. 270, 303 which was subjected to analysis.
Decisions of typos with the figures presented in court said the government ran a presentation to meet with any person or body quirks. The government regulator requires constant awareness of the impact of legislative developments and industry trends and ongoing. There is the need for external consultants to give their objective on huge demands especially in unknown actions reviews. In such cases, the now useless but necessary demand requires more in-depth research, planning, analysis and the reality of how to fight cases misunderstood use laws. This implies compulsory receive expert help to train the executors. This paper has emphasized that the demands of the past are benchmarks for current and future cases and judgments.
Upon focusing on how the SCP paradigm was applied in the case being considered, the first thing to note is that during the 1950s and 1960s, the grocery retail industry was characterized by ownership concentration. In other words, fewer and fewer owners started to own more and more stores (which they would go and absorb from smaller competitors). The structure and conduct of the market was going in the direction of fewer competitors of larger sizes. In the particular case of Von’s Grocery Company, it may be seen that its sales, when combined with the sales of Shopping Bag Food Stores, represented 7.5% of the total dollar amount of retail groceries sold per year in Los Angeles. Combining this fact by the fact that between the late 1940s and the late 1950s both businesses involved with the merger had doubled in size (measured by the amount of retail stores owned by each), and that the trend was going in the direction of larger (and fewer) competitors, it was decided that there was no violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In sum, it was decided that there was no attempt of creating a monopoly, but rather a strategic decision imposed by the market.
Fox, Byron E. & Fox, Eleanor M. Chapter Summary, ABSTRACT TEXT:. LexisNexis Group. 2014.
Thomson Reuters. U.S. Supreme Court. Thomson Reuters, 2014. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=270>. Web. 20 June 2014.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: