United States v. International Boxing Club of NY, Inc.

Decision Date02 July 1957
Citation171 F. Supp. 841
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BOXING CLUB OF NEW YORK, INC., a corporation of New York; International Boxing Club, a corporation of Illinois; Madison Square Garden Corporation, a corporation of New York; James D. Norris; and Arthur M. Wirtz, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Herbert Brownell, Jr., Atty. Gen., Victor R. Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Victor H. Kramer, New York City, Richard B. O'Donnell, John D. Swartz, William J. Elkins, Lawrence Gochberg, Frank D. Curtis, Edward F. Corcoran, Attys., Dept. of Justice, New York City, for the United States.

Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, New York City, for defendants.

RYAN, District Judge.

This cause having been heard, and the Court having fully considered the evidence and arguments, and having filed its Opinion on Violations, Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, and having fully considered evidence and arguments on relief, it is hereby

Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed That:

1. As used in this Final Judgment:

(a) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, corporation, or any other legal entity;
(b) "Madison Square Garden" means the arena located in New York City, owned and operated by Madison Square Garden Corporation, or any arena which Madison Square Garden Corporation may use as a replacement thereof after the destruction, sale, or permanent discontinuance of use by said Corporation of its existing arena;
(c) "Chicago Stadium" means the stadium located in Chicago, Illinois, owned and controlled by the Chicago Stadium Corporation or any stadium which Chicago Stadium Corporation may use as a replacement thereof after the destruction, sale, or permanent discontinuance of use by said Corporation of its existing stadium;
(d) "Professional championship boxing contests" means a contest between two professional boxers, the winner of which will receive recognition as the champion of a recognized weight division; and
(e) "Promote" means in respect of any professional boxing contest the acquiring of any right to participate in, share or receive the proceeds, revenue or receipts thereof, or any part of said proceeds, revenue or receipts, but this shall not include payments for the use of any arena or stadium nor shall it include payments to contestants. "Promotor" means any person who undertakes the promotion of a professional boxing contest.

2. The provisions of this Final Judgment shall be binding upon the parties to this action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.

3. All contracts between any professional boxer and any of the defendants, which provide that a boxer will engage in professional boxing contests exclusively for any of the defendants, are hereby declared to be null and void.

4. The defendants, and each of them, are restrained and enjoined from entering into, directly or indirectly, any contract, agreement, or understanding, which provides, in terms or in effect, that a boxer shall not engage in a professional boxing contest for any person other than the defendants, or any of them. Provided, however, that nothing in this Section Four (4) shall be construed to prevent the defendants, or any of them, from entering into a contract with a professional boxer providing for the promotion of a single professional boxing contest. After five (5) years from the date of entry of this Final Judgment, this provision shall not prevent the defendants, or any of them, from entering into a contract with a professional boxer providing for the promotion of a single professional boxing contest which contract may contain a provision that the contracting defendant shall have the right to promote one (1) return professional boxing contest between the same boxers within a period of not more than eight (8) months from the date of such professional boxing contest.

5. The defendants, and each of them, are restrained and enjoined from maintaining, enforcing, attempting to enforce or entering into, directly or indirectly, and contract, agreement, or understanding which provides, in terms or in effect, that the owner or operator of any arena or stadium not owned or controlled by them or any of them, shall not lease, or otherwise make available, any such arena or stadium to any person other than the defendants, or any of them, for the purpose of promoting a professional boxing contest. This provision shall not prevent the defendants, or any of them, from leasing an arena or stadium not owned or controlled by them for the purpose of promoting any single professional boxing program contemplated to be presented on one day.

6. The defendants, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from interfering, in any manner, with the sale or disposition of the radio, television, motion picture, theatre television, or other similar rights to a professional championship boxing contest by any promoter other than the defendants.

7. The defendants, and each of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined from maintaining, enforcing, attempting to enforce, or entering into any contract, agreement, or understanding with any sponsor of a radio or television series of professional boxing contests promoted or arranged for by any of the defendants, or with any radio or television network carrying such a series, which prevents, in terms or in effect, the said sponsor or network from purchasing directly from any other promoter the broadcast or television rights to one or more professional championship boxing contests and presenting it as a part of such a television or broadcast series, or independently of such a series.

8. Within five (5) years from the date of entry of this Final Judgment, defendants James D. Norris and Arthur M. Wirtz, and each of them, are hereby ordered to sell or cause to be sold all of the capital stock of Madison Square Garden Corporation, which they, or either of them, own or control, directly or indirectly through any other person or entity. The aforesaid sale shall be made under conditions and to a person, or persons, approved by this Court.

9. Pending the sale of stock pursuant to Section Eight (8), above, defendants James D. Norris and Arthur M. Wirtz, and each of them, are hereby ordered to transfer to Hon. George Frankenthaler, 120 Broadway, New York City and Hon. Harold M. Kennedy, 26 Broadway, New York City, trustees now named and appointed by this Court, all of the capital stock of the Madison Square Garden Corporation which James D. Norris and Arthur M. Wirtz, or either of them, own or control, directly or indirectly through any other person or entity.

The said trustees shall report the amounts, stock certificate numbers and transferor of the said stock as received by them to this Court and to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division.

If the said stock is not sold by defendants James D. Norris and Arthur M. Wirtz within the period specified in Section Eight (8), above the trustees are hereby ordered and empowered to sell said stock within two years thereafter to persons not connected or affiliated in any way with defendants James D. Norris or Arthur M. Wirtz. The aforesaid sale by the trustees shall be made only after obtaining, on notice to the Assistant Attorney General in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • LG Balfour Company v. FTC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • April 5, 1971
    ...into new exclusive dealing contracts are designed to eliminate petitioners' monopoly power. See United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., 171 F.Supp. 841, 842 (S.D. N.Y.1957), affirmed, 358 U.S. 242, 247, 79 S.Ct. 245, 3 L.Ed.2d 270 Petitioners also attack that part of t......
  • American Medical Ass'n v. F.T.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • October 7, 1980
    ...Jacob Siegel Co. v. FTC, 327 U.S. 608, 613, 66 S.Ct. 758, 760, 90 L.Ed. 888 (1946). See also United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc., 171 F.Supp. 841, 842 (S.D.N.Y.1957), aff'd 358 U.S. 242, 245, 79 S.Ct. 245, 247, 3 L.Ed.2d 270 (1959). The Commission "must be allowed e......
  • International Boxing Club of New York v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1959
    ...granting injunctive relief designed to open up the market in the business of promoting professional world championship boxing matches. 171 F.Supp. 841. The appellants, while not attacking any specific finding as clearly erroneous, claim that the proof did not show that they violated Section......
  • Machen v. Johansson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 9, 1959
    ...to a decree of Judge Ryan in an anti-trust suit brought against it. United States v. International Boxing Club, D.C., 150 F.Supp. 397; 171 F.Supp. 841; 358 U.S. 242, 79 S. Ct. 245, 3 L.Ed.2d As I have already stated, plaintiff seeks drastic relief by his prayer for an injunction restraining......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT