- 10 -
answered the specific question before it stating:
We are merely confronted with the naked question
whether the District Court had the power to divest
American of any part of its ownership interest in the
acquired Lucky Stores, either by forbidding the
exercise of the owner's normal right to integrate the
operations of the two previously separate companies, or
by requiring it to sell certain assets located in
California. We hold that such a remedy is a form of
“injunctive relief” within the meaning of section 16 of
the Clayton Act. * * * [Id. at 296.]
The Supreme Court remanded the matter for further proceedings.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated part of its
earlier opinion and remanded the case to the District Court.
The preliminary injunction obtained by the State of
California was modified on at least four occasions. A
modification filed with the District Court on November 7, 1989,
permitted American Stores to integrate specified northern
California operations of Alpha Beta with specified northern
California operations of Lucky Stores following a stipulated
divestiture of specified Alpha Beta assets. American Stores
ultimately settled the dispute with the attorney general of
California by entering into a stipulation for entry of consent
decree on May 16, 1990 (the California consent decree). The
California consent decree did not require American Stores to
divest any of its Lucky Stores stock, and Lucky Stores remains a
wholly owned subsidiary of American Stores. Instead, the
California consent decree required American Stores to dispose of
approximately 152 of its 175 southern California Alpha Beta
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