American Stores Company and Subsidiaries - Page 22




                                        - 22 -                                        
          United States, 473 F.2d 1217 (7th Cir. 1973).  All the                      
          circumstances surrounding the claim must be considered.  See id.            
          at 1220.3                                                                   
               The District Court described the State of California’s                 
          antitrust complaint in the following terms:                                 
               The State requests a preliminary injunction “preventing                
               and restraining [Alpha Beta and Lucky], and all persons                
               acting on their behalf, from taking any action, either                 
               directly or indirectly, in furtherance of the proposed                 
               acquisition of Lucky, and requiring Alpha Beta to hold                 
               and operate separately all of Lucky’s California assets                
               and businesses pending final adjudication of the merits                
               of this action; and ... such injunctive relief,                        
               including recission ... as is necessary and appropriate                
               to prevent the effect of the unlawful activities                       
               alleged.”  Complaint at 14.  Furthermore, the State                    
               seeks to “permanently enjoin [Alpha Beta and Lucky]                    
               from carrying out any agreement, understanding, or                     
               plan, the effect of which would be to combine the                      
               supermarket business of [Alpha Beta] and Lucky.” * * *                 
               [State of Cal. v. American Stores Co., 697 F. Supp.                    
               1125, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 1988).]                                          
          The Supreme Court described the complaint in the following terms:           
               The State sued, claiming that the merger violates the                  
               federal antitrust laws and will harm consumers in 62                   
               California cities.  The complaint prayed for a                         
               preliminary injunction requiring American to operate                   
               the acquired stores separately until the case is                       
               decided, and then to divest itself of all of the                       
               acquired assets located in California. * * *                           
               [California v. American Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271, 274                  
               (1990).]                                                               

               3In Brown v. United States, 526 F.2d 135, 139 (6th Cir.                
          1975), legal expenses paid in settlement of a derivative action             
          were held to be nondeductible capital expenditures.  The court              
          found that the origin of the derivative claim was the taxpayer’s            
          efforts to acquire the shareholder’s stock.  The court stated               
          that although conserving the stock’s value was the immediate                
          purpose of the derivative action, the test of deductibility                 
          relates to the origin rather than the purpose.                              




Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011