Search Details

Word: antitrust (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1950-1959
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

Estes Kefauver said that the Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee will do so. Senator Harry Byrd's Senate Finance Committee got ready to grill Treasury Secretary Humphrey on the boost this week, may also call steel-industry executives to testify. And incoming Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson wistfully told Congressmen: "I wish the steel increase had not taken place...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: STEEL: Price Rise | 7/8/1957 | See Source »

...Urged Taft-Hartley Act amendments to ban the union shop and make unions subject to antitrust laws-changes that Labor Secretary James Mitchell has plainly and publicly opposed...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: REPUBLICANS: Youth Will Not Be Swerved | 7/1/1957 | See Source »

...BIGGEST ANTITRUST FINE levied against single defendant under present laws was slapped on Safeway Stores Inc., second largest U.S. grocery chain (after A. & P.). Federal District Court in Fort Worth fined Safeway and its executives $187,500 after company did not contest charges that 150 of its stores in Texas and New Mexico sold groceries below wholesale cost to run out competitors in 22-month price...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Business: TIME CLOCK, Jul. 1, 1957 | 7/1/1957 | See Source »

...first few hours after the U.S. Supreme Court laid down the antitrust law to Du Pont last week (see NATIONAL AFFAIRS), Wall Street reacted with anticipation. Du Pont stock shot up 6 points to 202½ in the hope of big stock dividends following the court's ruling that Du Pont interests must give up their 23% control (64 million shares) of General Motors stock, worth $2.7 billion. But when Wall Street took a more careful look, Du Pont stock slipped back down. Both Du Pont and G.M. stock fluctuated nervously for the rest of the week, as everyone...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: CORPORATIONS: The $2.7 Billion Question | 6/17/1957 | See Source »

What worried businessmen was the sweeping nature of the decision, putting a new emphasis on the nation's antitrust philosophy. As Justice Harold H. Burton wrote in his dissenting opinion: The ruling "disregards the language and purpose of the statute, 40 years of administrative practice and of the precedents . . . except one District Court decision. To make its case, the court requires no showing of any misuse of a stock interest-either at the time of acquisition or subsequently-to gain preferential treatment. All that is required, if this case is to be our guide, is that some court...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: CORPORATIONS: The $2.7 Billion Question | 6/17/1957 | See Source »

Previous | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | Next