Purex Corporation v. The Procter & Gamble Company, and the Clorox Company

Purex Corporation (“Purex”) appeals from a judgment in favor of The Procter & Gamble Company (“Procter”) in an action by Purex seeking damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 15 ) for claimed violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 18 ) and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2). We vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further consideration in the light of Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (1977) 429 U.S. 477 , 97 S.Ct. 690 , 50 L.Ed.2d 701 ; Greyhound Computer Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp. (9th Cir. 1977) 559 F.2d 488 , and for making new findings of fact following reconsideration of the controlling legal standards.

This litigation was spawned by the acquisition of Clorox Chemical Company (“Clorox”) by Procter on August 1, 1957. At that time, Clorox was the nation’s leading producer of liquid bleach and Procter was the nation’s leading manufacturer of soaps, detergents, and other high-turnover household products. On September 20, 1957, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) challenged Procter’s acquisition of Clorox on the grounds that it might substantially lessen competition or…

concurring:

I would concur only insofar that the cause is remanded to the trial court for further findings and reconsideration in light of Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 , 97 S.Ct. 690 , 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) and Greyhound Computer v. Inter. Business Machines, 559 F.2d 488 (9th Cir. 1977). The trial court essentially found in its detailed Memorandum Decision that there was no nexus between the activities of the defendant and the alleged injury to the plaintiff. Such reconsideration may or may not require a different result. As is often the case in protracted litigation (this case has been actively pursued in the trial court since 1967), several significant cases have been decided since the trial court *891 made its decision. The trial court should have the opportunity to review the matter anew and we, of course, would benefit from such evaluation. It is my view that the trial court would be free, but not obligated, to undertake further proceedings if such would assist that determination.

596 F.2d 881 1979-1 Trade Cases 62,675 PUREX CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, and the Clorox Company, Defendants-Appellees. No. 76-3205. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 11, 1979. John L. Endicott, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Robert K. Wrede, Los Angeles, Cal., Daniel M. Gribbon, Washington, D. C., Powell McHenry, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before HUFSTEDLER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges, and ENRIGHT, * District Judge. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 Purex Corporation ("Purex") appeals from a judgment in favor of The Procter & Gamble Company ("Procter") in an action by Purex seeking damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 15 ) for claimed violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 18 ) and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 , 2). We vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further consideration in the light of Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. (1977) 429 U.S. 477 , 97 S.Ct. 690 , 50 L.Ed.2d 701 ; Greyhound Computer…