|
''United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank'', , the ''Philadelphia Bank'' case, was a 1963 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended in 1950,〔15 U.S.C. § 15.〕 applied to bank mergers. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court considered the application of the antitrust laws to the commercial banking industry.〔374 U.S. at 324.〕 In addition to holding the statute applicable to bank mergers,〔374 U.S. at 342.〕 the Court established a presumption that mergers that covered at least 30 percent of the relevant market were presumptively unlawful.〔374 U.S. at 365.〕 ==Background== The defendant, Philadelphia National Bank (PNB), is a commercial bank, a unique type of financial institution because "they alone are permitted by law to accept demand deposits. This distinctive power gives commercial banking a key role in the national economy."〔374 U.S. at 326.〕 In addition, commercial banks engage in the important services of "the creation of additional money and credit, the management of the checking account system, and the furnishing of short-term business loans."〔374 U.S. at 326-27.〕 PNB and Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank, respectively, the second and third largest of the 42 commercial banks with head offices in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, proposed to merge. PNB had assets of over $1 billion, making it the twenty-first largest bank in the Nation. Girard had assets of about $750 million. If the two banks merged, the resulting bank would be the largest in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, with 36% of the area banks' total assets (nearly $2 billion), 36% of deposits, and 34% of net loans. It and the second largest bank (First Pennsylvania Bank and Trust Company, now the largest) would have between them 59% of the total assets, 58% of deposits, and 58% of the net loans. After such a merger, the four largest banks in the area would have 78% of total assets, 77% of deposits, and 78% of net loans.〔374 U.S. at 331.〕 Both merging banks owed their present size to previous mergers. A trend toward concentration was noticeable in the Philadelphia area generally: the number of commercial banks declined from 108 in 1947 to 42 in 1960. Since 1950, PNB acquired nine formerly independent banks and Girard six; these acquisitions accounted for 59% and 85% of the respective banks' asset growth during the period, 63% and 91% of their deposit growth, and 12% and 37% of their loan growth. During this period, the seven largest banks in the Philadelphia area increased their combined share of the area's total commercial bank resources from about 61% to about 90%.〔374 U.S. at 331.〕 The Comptroller of Currency approved the merger, despite reports from two other banking agencies and the Attorney General that the proposed merger would have substantial anticompetitive effects in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.〔374 U.S. at 333-34.〕 The Comptroller explained the basis for his decision to approve the merger: Since there will remain an adequate number of alternative sources of banking service in Philadelphia, and in view of the beneficial effects of this consolidation upon international and national competition it was concluded that the over-all effect upon competition would not be unfavorable. . . . (the consolidated bank ) would be far better able to serve the convenience and needs of its community by being of material assistance to its city and state in their efforts to attract new industry and to retain existing industry.〔374 U.S. at 334.〕 The United States Justice Department's Antitrust Division then sued PNB to enjoin the merger, invoking § 1 of the Sherman Act and § 7 of the Clayton Act. The district court ruled for PNB and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|