United States v. Morgan, Civ. A. No. 43-757.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
| Citation | 118 F. Supp. 621 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1953 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MORGAN et al. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 43-757. |
118 F. Supp. 621
UNITED STATES
v.
MORGAN et al.
Civ. A. No. 43-757.
United States District Court, S. D. New York.
October 14, 1953.
Breed, Abbott & Morgan, New York City, for defendant Eastman, Dillon & Co.; Herman A. Heydt, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Cahill, Gordon, Zachry & Reindel, New York City, for defendants Dillon, Read
Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C., for defendant Smith, Barney & Co.; W. Graham Claytor, Jr. and William Stanley, Jr., Washington, D. C., of counsel.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendants Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and Union Securities Corporation; Wm. Dwight Whitney, Geo. Stephen Leonard and Henry R. Nolte, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City, for defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. and Harriman Ripley & Co., Incorporated; John W. Davis, Ralph M. Carson, Leighton H. Coleman, Edward R. Wardwell, Francis W. Phillips, George Edward Cotter and Warren W. Eginton, New York City, of counsel.
Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City, for defendant Harris, Hall & Company (Incorporated); Roy W. McDonald, Thomas K. Fisher, New York City, Douglas V. Lewis, Rockville Center, N. Y., John J. O'Connell, Jr., and John F. Seiberling, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., and Emmet, Marvin & Martin, New York City, for defendant Drexel & Co.; Henry S. Drinker and John G. Williams, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.
Shearman & Sterling & Wright, New York City, for defendant White, Weld & Co.; Walter K. Earle and Lauretta D. Robinson, New York City, of counsel.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for defendants Blyth & Co., Inc., Glore, Forgan & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Lehman Brothers; Arthur H. Dean, Edward H. Green, Eustace Seligman, John F. Dooling, Jr., William Piel, Jr., Roy H. Steyer, Francis E. Barkman, Robert Lockwood, William H. Buchanan, Jr., Roderick J. Kirkpatrick, John R. Miller, Anthony Chandler, and Marvin S. Sloman, New York City, of counsel.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, and Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, Mass., for defendant The First Boston Corporation; Arthur H. Dean, William Piel, Jr., Roy H. Steyer and Robert T. Quittmeyer, of Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, and Robert Proctor and Brinley Hall, of Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, Mass., of counsel.
Webster, Sheffield & Chrystie, New York City, for defendant Kidder, Peabody & Co.; Bethuel M. Webster, Edward L. Rea and Bancroft G. Davis, New York City, of counsel.
TOPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF OPINION
Introduction.
The Offense as Charged in the Complaint.
Certain Alleged Unifying Elements Abandoned or Disproved.
The Applicable Law Relative to Conspiracy.
PART I The Investment Banking Business I. Prior to the First World War. II. Between World War I and the Securities Act of 1933. III. Further Developments 1933-1949. IV. How the Investment Banker Functions. PART II: The Seventeen Defendant Investment Banking Firms. 1. Morgan Stanley & Co. 2. Kuhn Loeb & Co. 3. Smith Barney & Co. 4. Lehman Brothers. 5. Glore Forgan & Co. 6. Kidder Peabody & Co. 7. Goldman Sachs & Co. 8. White Weld & Co. 9. Eastman Dillon & Co. 10. Drexel & Co. 11. The First Boston CorporationMEDINA, Circuit Judge.
Introduction
This is a civil action in equity to restrain the continuance of certain alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Act of Congress of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, 4. It is charged that defendants entered into a combination, conspiracy and agreement to restrain and monopolize the securities business of the United States and that such business was thereby unreasonably restrained and in part monopolized.
The "securities business" which is the subject of these charges is defined in the complaint in terms that are uncertain and in part contradictory. In the clarifying process of pretrial hearings and trial, however, counsel for plaintiff receded in part from the allegations of the complaint. As finally re-defined, plaintiff's position is that the "security issues" to which the charges of the complaint should be understood to relate are intended to include new issues, and secondary offerings registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S. C.A. § 77a et seq., of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halo v. Yale Health Plan, Civil Action No. 3:10–cv–1949 VLB.
...542 U.S. 200, 208, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004), whose sections cannot be read in isolation. See, e.g., U.S. v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 691 (S.D.N.Y.1953) (stating that portions of “one comprehensive scheme of regulation” such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exch......
-
Billing v. Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd., Docket No. 03-9284L.
...as an essential means by which underwriters could manage the risks inherent in underwriting. See generally United States v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 635-55 (S.D.N.Y.1953). At that time, "[n]o single underwriter could have borne alone the underwriting risk involved in the purchase and sale o......
-
Noerr Motor Freight v. Eastern Railroad Pres. Conf., Civ. A. No. 14715.
...to impute their conduct to the respective corporate defendants. As stated by the court in United States v. Morgan, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1953, 118 F.Supp. 621, in a suit under the antitrust laws, once a conspiracy is shown to have existed, only slight evidence is necessary to connect individual co-c......
-
In re Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litigation, No. 01 Civ.2014(WHP), 01 Civ.11420(WHP).
...predominant structure for the public distribution of equities since the infancy of the securities markets. See United States v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 635 (S.D.N.Y.1953) ("[T]he syndicate system as a means of issuing and distributing security issues was in use at least as early as the Whi......
-
Halo v. Yale Health Plan, Civil Action No. 3:10–cv–1949 VLB.
...542 U.S. 200, 208, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004), whose sections cannot be read in isolation. See, e.g., U.S. v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 691 (S.D.N.Y.1953) (stating that portions of “one comprehensive scheme of regulation” such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exch......
-
Noerr Motor Freight v. Eastern Railroad Pres. Conf., Civ. A. No. 14715.
...to impute their conduct to the respective corporate defendants. As stated by the court in United States v. Morgan, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1953, 118 F.Supp. 621, in a suit under the antitrust laws, once a conspiracy is shown to have existed, only slight evidence is necessary to connect individual co-c......
-
Halo v. Yale Health Plan, Civil Action No. 3:10–cv–1949 (VLB).
...542 U.S. 200, 208, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004), whose sections cannot be read in isolation. See, e.g., U.S. v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 691 (S.D.N.Y.1953) (stating that portions of “one comprehensive scheme of regulation” such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exch......
-
Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Burke, No. CIV.A. 3:03-CV-0738(JCH).
...One such abuse was the widespread use of bank deposits to underwrite "one security issue after another." United States v. Morgan, 118 F.Supp. 621, 645 (S.D.N.Y.1953). Congress was also concerned about the "indirect pressure" that the affiliation of commercial banks with investment banks cou......