American Stores Company and Subsidiaries - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
               The FTC allowed, in accordance with its regulations, a                 
          comment period during which the public was invited to submit                
          comments on the proposed consent order.  The attorney general of            
          California submitted comments expressing concern that American              
          Stores’ acquisition of Lucky Stores would reduce competition in             
          the retail supermarket industry in California.                              
               The FTC entered a final consent order on August 31, 1988.              
          On September 1, 1988, the State of California filed suit against            
          American Stores, ABAC, and Lucky Stores in the United States                
          District Court for the Central District of California (District             
          Court).  The State of California claimed that the merger violated           
          Federal and State antitrust laws by decreasing competition in the           
          supermarket industry in California.  The State of California                
          requested various forms of relief, including rescinding the                 
          merger transaction, a divestiture of Lucky Stores or,                       
          alternatively, a permanent “hold separate agreement” like the one           
          that American Stores had entered into with the FTC.                         
               The District Court issued a temporary restraining order                
          against American Stores and Lucky Stores on September 29, 1988.             
          The order required the continuation of the hold separate                    
          agreement and the maintenance of the status quo at American                 
          Stores and its subsidiaries and Lucky Stores and its subsidiaries           
          until a hearing on the preliminary injunction could be held.  The           
          opinion of the District Court in this matter was published as               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011