Can someone please help me understand what was the alleged violation and what happened (if any). In simple words.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1-74-66 JAN 2 8 1977 V . ALBERTSON'S, INC. , ET AL. , COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT Defendants. Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act [15 U.S. C. S$ 16 (b)-(h) , P. L. 93-528 (December 21, 1974)], the United States of America hereby files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed consent judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding. I NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING On April 19, 1974, the United States, filed a civil complaint under Section 15 of the Clayton Act [15 U.S.C. $ 25], alleging that the defendants had violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act [15 U.S. C. $ 18] . The complaint charged that the June 13, 1972 sale of the assets and business of Mountain States Wholesale Company by DiGiorgio Corporation to Albertson's, Inc. threatened to substantially lessen competition and create a monopoly in the wholesale and retail distribution of a general line of groceries and related products in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon.PRACTICES AND EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS The wholesale distribution of a general line of groceries and related products in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon, also sometimes referred to as the Snake River Valley, is performed principally by three companies, with Mountain States Wholesale Company having the largest market share. The retail distribution of a general line of groceries and related products within this area is performed by a large number of independent retail grocery stores and by several retail grocery chains, with Albertson's, Inc. having the largest market share. Both Albertson's and Mountain States are headquartered in Boise, Idaho. At the time of the acquisition, Albertson's was a large customer of Mountain States, accounting for over 40$ of Mountain States' total sales. In addition to supplying Albertson's stores and other independent retail customers with groceries and related products, Mountain States also sponsored a group of some 30 affiliated retail stores known as Foodland and Clover Farm Stores which were located in various cities and towns throughout southern Idaho and eastern Oregon. In 1972, total wholesale sales of groceries and related products in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon were estimated to be about $124 million and total retail sales were estimated to be about $250 million. The complaint alleged that Albertson's acquisition of Mountain States would injure competition in several respects, including the following: (1) Wholesale competitors of Mountain States would be foreclosed from access to Albertson's as a customer; (2) Retail competitors of Albertson's might be foreclosed from access to Mountain States as a supplier; and (3) The acquisition generally reduced competition between Albertson's and MountainEXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT The proposed consent judgment directs Albertson's to divest itself of all of its interest in Mountain States' wholesale grocery business within eighteen months from the date the decree is entered to a person approved by the Government, or failing such approval, to a person approved by the Court. Albertson's has informed the Govern- ment that it has negotiated but not yet closed an agreement with American Strevell, Inc. which provides for the sale of said wholesale grocery business to American Strevell, Inc. The Government has informed Albertson's by letter that, based upon its present information, the Government has no objection to said divestiture. American Strevell is a grocery wholesaler headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, that presently competes in southern Idaho only in that portion of the state east of Twin Falls, Idaho. American Strevell presently has no sales in the area of Boise, Idaho, the state's largest city, and, by its purchase of Mountain States' whole- sale grocery business, would be a new competitor in that area. Mountain States presently does compete to a small extent with American Strevell in a portion of southern Idaho east of Twin Falls, however, the Government believes that after sale of Mountain States' wholesale grocery business to American Strevell, all communities of southern Idaho and eastern Oregon will generally be served by the same number of wholesale distributors of groceries and related products and with comparable service as are other communities of similar size in adjacent geographical markets. Under the terms of the proposed consent judgment American Strevell would acquire the customer accounts of Mountain States' wholesale grocery business other than Albertson's. These accounts would include Mountain States' group of affiliated Foodland and Clover FarmStores. Prior to advising defendant Albertson's of its tentative approval of American Strevell as the purchaser of Mountain States' wholesale grocery business, the Government contacted and interviewed several executives in the wholesale grocery industry to ascertain whether such a sale would be in the public interest. Based upon those interviews and other investigation which it has conducted, the Government believes such a sale will remedy the anticompetitive effects charged by the complaint, restore competition in both the wholesale and retail distribution of groceries and related products in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon, and otherwise satisfy the public interest. The proposed consent judgment also enjoins Albertson's for a period of five years from acquiring any retail grocery chain or whole- sale grocery business in the State of Idaho or within Eastern Oregon except with the approval of the Government or the Court upon a showing that such acquisition will not substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. IV REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS Any potential private plaintiffs who might have been damaged by the alleged violation will retain the same right to sue for monetary damages and any other legal and equitable remedies that they would have had were the proposed consent judgment not entered. However, pursuant to Section 5 (a) of the Clayton Act [15 U.S.C. 5 15(a) ], as amended, this judgment may not be used as prima facie evidence in private litigation. VPROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT The proposed consent judgment is subject to a stipulation byand between the United States and the defendant, which provides that the United States may withdraw its consent to the proposed judgment at any time until the Court has found that entry of the proposed judgment is in the public interest. The Government has advised Albertson's that, if it should have any objection to Albertson's contemplated sale of Mountain States' wholesale grocery business to American Strevell, Inc. before the proposed consent judgment is entered by the Court, it will withdraw its consent to the judgment. By its terms, the proposed consent judgment provides for the Court's retention of jurisdiction of this action in order, among other reasons, to permit either of the parties thereto to apply to the Court for such orders as may be necessary or appropriate for the modification of the final judgment. As provided by Section 2 (b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act [15 U.S.C. $ 16(b)], any persons wishing to comment upon the proposed judgment may, for a sixty-day period prior to the effective date of the proposed judgment, submit written comments to the United States Department of Justice, Attention Anthony E. Desmond, Chief, San Francisco Office, Antitrust Division, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36046, San Francisco, California 94102. The Department of Justice will file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register such comments and its response to them. In evaluating any and all such comments, the Department will determine whether there is any reason for withdrawal of its consent to the proposed judgment. VI DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS Since there are no materials or documents which were considered determinative in formulating the proposed consent judgment, none arebeing filed by the United States pursuant to Section 2 (b), of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. 16 (b)). - 5 - VII ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT CONSIDERED BY THE UNITED STATES Under the terms of the proposed consent judgment, Albertson's will divest itself of Mountain States' wholesale grocery business but will retain Mountain States' sundries business. Sundries con- sist of several hundred non-food items such as drugs, housewares, and apparel. Their manner and method of distribution is generally both separate and different from that of groceries. The Government has not insisted that Albertson's dispose of Mountain States' sundries business because the contemplated purchaser of Mountain States' grocery business, American Strevell, already has sufficient sundry supply centers of its own to meet the demand for sundries by Mountain States' non-Albertson's customers. This case does not involve any unusual or novel issues of fact or law which might make litigation a more desirable alternative than entry of this consent judgment. The Department of Justice believesALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED CONSENT JUDGMENT CONSIDERED BY THE UNITED STATES Under the terms of the proposed consent judgment, Albertson's will divest itself of Mountain States' wholesale grocery business but will retain Mountain States' sundries business. Sundries con- sist of several hundred non-food items such as drugs, housewares, and apparel. Their manner and method of distribution is generally both separate and different from that of groceries. The Government has not insisted that Albertson's dispose of Mountain States' sundries business because the contemplated purchaser of Mountain States' grocery business, American Strevell, already has sufficient sundry supply centers of its own to meet the demand for sundries by Mountain States' non-Albertson's customers. This case does not involve any unusual or novel issues of fact or law which might make litigation a more desirable alternative than entry of this consent judgment. The Department of Justice believes the substantive language in the consent judgment to be of sufficient scope and effectiveness to make litigation for relief unnecessary as the judgment provides for all of the relief requested in the Complaint. Dated: JAN 2 8 1977 Respectfully Submitted, JAMES E. FIGENSHAW STEVEN L. WEINSTEIN Attorney, Department of Justice