From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Heublein, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
539 F. Supp. 123 (1982)
General Cinema Corporation (Cinema) bottled soft drinks and exhibited movies. On February 4, 1982, Cinema filed a premerger notification form with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (defendant), pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, seeking approval to acquire up to 49.9 percent of the common stock of Haublein, Inc. (plaintiff). Haublein produced and distributed specialty foods and spirits. The FTC found no reason to oppose the acquisition, i.e., the transaction was not anticompetitive, and allowed Cinema to consummate the acquisition. Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, there was a prescribed waiting period of 30 days before acquisitions could be consummated, subject to the FTC’s authority to extend or reduce the waiting period. Cinema’s waiting period would expire on March 6, 1982. On March 2, 1982, Haublein filed a premerger notification form with the FTC, seeking approval to acquire up to 49.9 percent of Cinema’s common stock. Haublein requested an early termination of its waiting period so that it could purchase Cinema’s stock as soon as Cinema’s waiting period expired because there would be no anticompetitive effect and any delay would be contrary to the purposes of the act. Under an administrative agency’s guidance, requestors had to demonstrate a special business reason to justify a shorter waiting period. The FTC denied Haublein’s request for an early termination on the ground that Haublein failed to demonstrate a “special business reason” for an early termination. The FTC additionally stated that it wished to remain neutral between the parties. By March 12, 1982, Cinema had purchased many of its own shares, and Cinema’s directors were planning to increase their holdings, which had driven Cinema’s stock price to a record high. Haublein sued the FTC, seeking a temporary restraining order so that Haublein could consummate its purchase of Cinema stock as soon as possible.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Clarie, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.