Jump to content

United States v. Morgan (1953): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m rm spaces
→Facts: copyedit section, rmv un-informative section title
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App section source
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{distinguish|text=United States v. Morgan, 346 US 502 (1954), a [[United States Supreme Court]] case; see [[United States v. Morgan (1954)]]}}
⚫
'''U.S. v. Morgan et. al''', more commonly referred to as the '''Investment Bankers Case''' was a year-long [[antitrust]] case against 17 of the most prominent [[Wall Street]] investment banking firms, known as the Wall Street Seventeen.<ref name=finhist>[http://books.google.com/books?id=YRjmQLOscGoC&pg=PA289 A financial history of the United States Vol. 3]. M.E. Sharpe, 2002</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889407,00.html Nothing Short of Criminal]. Time Magazine, Mar. 17, 1952</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889407,00.html Trustbusters' Retreat]. Time Magazine, Dec. 3, 1951</ref>
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox United States District Court case
| name = United States v. Morgan
| court = [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York]]
| image = USDCSDNY.svg
| full name = United States v. Morgan et al.
| keywords = Investment Bankers Case
| date decided = October 14, 1953
| citations = 118 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/118/621/2281809/ 621] (S.D.N.Y. 1953)
⚫
| judge = [[Harold Medina]]
| plaintiff = United States of America
| defendant = 17 defendants (see list in article)
}}


⚫
'''''United States v. Morgan''''', 118 F. Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1953), more commonly referred to as the '''Investment Bankers Case''' was a multi-year [[antitrust]] case brought by the [[United States Justice Department]] against seventeen of the most prominent [[Wall Street]] investment banking firms, known as the Wall Street Seventeen.<ref name=finhist>[https://books.google.com/books?id=YRjmQLOscGoC&pg=PA289 A financial history of the United States Vol. 3]. M.E. Sharpe, 2002</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101123160916/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889407,00.html Nothing Short of Criminal]. Time Magazine, Mar. 17, 1952</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101123160916/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,889407,00.html Trustbusters' Retreat]. Time Magazine, Dec. 3, 1951</ref>
⚫
The case was presided over by [[Harold Medina]]



⚫
The 17 Wall Street firms named as defendants in the case, later known as the "Wall Street Seventeen" were as follows:<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,793926,00.html Money Monopoly?]. TIME Magazine, Nov 10, 1947</ref><ref name=finhist />
The Justice Department filed suit against the firms in 1947, claiming that the leading investment banking firms had combined, conspired and agreed, in violation of the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]], to control and monopolize the U.S. Securities markets.

⚫
The 17 Wall Street firms named as defendants in the case, later known as the "Wall Street Seventeen" were:<ref name=finhist /><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110203115617/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,793926,00.html Money Monopoly?]. TIME Magazine, Nov 10, 1947</ref>
#[[Morgan Stanley|Morgan Stanley & Co.]]
#[[Morgan Stanley|Morgan Stanley & Co.]]
#[[Kidder Peabody]]
#[[Kidder Peabody]]
Line 15: Line 31:
#[[Lehman Brothers]]
#[[Lehman Brothers]]
#[[Blyth & Co.]]
#[[Blyth & Co.]]
#[[Eastman Dillon & Co.]]<ref>[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00812FC3D5C117B93C2A81788D85F458585F9 Eastman, Dillon Was 'Robin Hood' In Wall Street, Judge Medina Told]. New York Times, March 10, 1951</ref>
#[[Eastman Dillon & Co.]]<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/1951/03/10/archives/eastman-dillon-was-robin-hood-in-wall-street-judge-medina-told.html Eastman, Dillon Was 'Robin Hood' In Wall Street, Judge Medina Told]. New York Times, March 10, 1951</ref>
#[[Harriman Ripley]]
#[[Harriman Ripley]]
#[[Stone & Webster Securities Corp.]]
#[[Stone & Webster Securities Corp.]]
Line 22: Line 38:
#[[Union Securities Corp.]]
#[[Union Securities Corp.]]


Excluded prominent Wall Street firms including [[Halsey Stuart & Co.]], [[Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane]] and [[Salomon Brothers & Hutzler]].
Excluded from the case were other prominent Wall Street firms including [[Bache & Co.]], [[Halsey Stuart & Co.]], [[Merrill Lynch]], Pierce, Fenner & Beane and [[Salomon Brothers & Hutzler]].

==Judgment==
The case, which was brought to trial in the [[Southern District of New York]] in 1952, was presided over by the controversial and politically conservative Federal judge [[Harold Medina]], who had become internationally infamous for his rulings in the 1949 [[Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders]].<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=16 October 1949 |title=VERDICT ASSAILED ABROAD; Communist Papers in Moscow, London, Paris Denounce Trial |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1949/10/16/archives/verdict-assailed-abroad-communist-papers-in-moscow-london-paris.html |location=New York, New York, USA |access-date=3 December 2020}}</ref> In October 1953, after a year-long trial, Medina found in favor of the investment banking firms. In his judgment, he saw "a constantly changing panorama of competition among the seventeen defendant firms."

{{expand section|date=April 2013}}


==See also==
==See also==
Line 30: Line 51:
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
⚫
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,819022,00.html Whither Are We Bound?]. TIME Magazine, October 26, 1953
*[http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=FDCR&cite=118+F.+Supp.+621 U.S. v. MORGAN, (S.D.N.Y. 1953) 118 F. Supp. 621. Civ. A. No. 43-757]. United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 14, 1953.


==External links==
[[Category:United States antitrust law]]
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''United States v. Morgan'', 118 F. Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16272511525268880530
| justia =https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/118/621/2281809/
}}
⚫
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20081222130448/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,819022,00.html Whither Are We Bound?]. TIME Magazine, October 26, 1953

[[Category:1953 in United States case law]]
[[Category:1953 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States district court cases]]
[[Category:United States antitrust case law]]
[[Category:United States District Court for the Southern District of New York cases]]
[[Category:History of banking]]
[[Category:History of banking in the United States]]

Latest revision as of 23:12, 4 November 2024

Not to be confused with United States v. Morgan, 346 US 502 (1954), a United States Supreme Court case; see United States v. Morgan (1954).

United States v. Morgan
CourtUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Full case name United States v. Morgan et al.
DecidedOctober 14, 1953
Defendant17 defendants (see list in article)
PlaintiffUnited States of America
Citation118 F. Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)
Court membership
Judge sittingHarold Medina
Keywords
Investment Bankers Case

United States v. Morgan, 118 F. Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1953), more commonly referred to as the Investment Bankers Case was a multi-year antitrust case brought by the United States Justice Department against seventeen of the most prominent Wall Street investment banking firms, known as the Wall Street Seventeen.[1][2][3]


The Justice Department filed suit against the firms in 1947, claiming that the leading investment banking firms had combined, conspired and agreed, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, to control and monopolize the U.S. Securities markets.

The 17 Wall Street firms named as defendants in the case, later known as the "Wall Street Seventeen" were:[1][4]

  1. Morgan Stanley & Co.
  2. Kidder Peabody
  3. Goldman Sachs
  4. White Weld & Co.
  5. Dillon Read & Co.
  6. Drexel & Co.
  7. First Boston Corporation
  8. Smith Barney & Co.
  9. Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
  10. Lehman Brothers
  11. Blyth & Co.
  12. Eastman Dillon & Co.[5]
  13. Harriman Ripley
  14. Stone & Webster Securities Corp.
  15. Harris, Hall & Co.
  16. Glore, Forgan & Co.
  17. Union Securities Corp.

Excluded from the case were other prominent Wall Street firms including Bache & Co., Halsey Stuart & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane and Salomon Brothers & Hutzler.

Judgment

[edit]

The case, which was brought to trial in the Southern District of New York in 1952, was presided over by the controversial and politically conservative Federal judge Harold Medina, who had become internationally infamous for his rulings in the 1949 Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders.[6] In October 1953, after a year-long trial, Medina found in favor of the investment banking firms. In his judgment, he saw "a constantly changing panorama of competition among the seventeen defendant firms."

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b A financial history of the United States Vol. 3. M.E. Sharpe, 2002
  2. ^ Nothing Short of Criminal. Time Magazine, Mar. 17, 1952
  3. ^ Trustbusters' Retreat. Time Magazine, Dec. 3, 1951
  4. ^ Money Monopoly?. TIME Magazine, Nov 10, 1947
  5. ^ Eastman, Dillon Was 'Robin Hood' In Wall Street, Judge Medina Told. New York Times, March 10, 1951
  6. ^ "VERDICT ASSAILED ABROAD; Communist Papers in Moscow, London, Paris Denounce Trial". New York, New York, USA. October 16, 1949. Retrieved December 3, 2020.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Morgan_(1953)&oldid=1255434800"