United States of America v. Bechtel Corporation
Cite as 648 F.2d 660 (1981)
660 648 FEDERAL, REPORTER, 2d SERIES
UNITED STATES of America
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.
BECHTEL CORPORATION, Bechtel Incorporated, Bechtel Power
Corporation, Bechtel International, Inc. and Bechtel
International Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 79-4194.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1981.
Decided June 18, 1981.
Defendant corporations and certain of their subsidiaries appealed
entry of consent jutigment by the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, William A. Ingram, J.,
in antitrust action. The Court of Appeals, Skopil, Circuit
Judge, held that: (1) the Government's failure to strictly
comply with the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act time
requirements did not entitle defendants to relief from their
consent judgment; (2) the Government did not breach the
stipulation or destroy consent by allegedly repudiating the
consent decree's meaning; (3) the District court did not abuse
its discretion in declining to decide at time of entry of judgement
whether the Export Admistration Act would require
modification of consent decree; (4) inquiry undertaken by district
court in determining whether consent decree was in the public
interest was appropriate in scope; and (5) the district court
did not err in determining that consent decree was in the public
interest.
Affirmed.
1. Federal Courts 562
Decrees entered by consent may be reviewed on appeal where there
is a claim of lack of actual consent or lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
2. Federal Courts 763
A decree that appears by the record to have been rendered by
consent is always affirmed without considering the merits of the
cause.
3. Federal Courts 774
in antitrust action in which consent decree was entered, any
error by the trial court in refusing to enter a judgment dismissing
action for the Government's alleged failure to state a cause of
action could not be corrected on appeal where defendants waive
the defect by their consent.
4. Monopolies 24(16)
Government's failure to strictly comply
with Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act time requirements did
not entitle corporations to relief from consent to judgment in
antitrust action, although stipulation filed by parties called
for consent to be entered at any time after compliance with
requirements of the Act, in view of fact that nonmmpliance with
time requirements did not go to the essence of the stipulation
and corporations failed to show any prejudice arising from the
Government's failure to file its responses to public comments
until nearly one year after the close of the comment period.
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties et, 21;21; 2, 2(d), 15 U.S.C.A.
21;21; 16, 16(d).
5. Monopolies 24(16)
In antitrust action, the Government did not breach stipulation
and destroy consent judgment by allegedly repudiating consent
decree's meaning when Government filed and published its
response to public comments on the proposed decree, although
Government had made incorrect statement in competitive impact
statement filed with proposed decree, in view of fact that interpretation
offered in Government's response to public comments was an effort
to correct and clarify its obvious earlier mistake, not a change
in position.
6. Federal Civil Procedure 2397
When a consent judgment is being interpreted for enforcement
purposes the court may rely on certain aids to construction,
including the circumstances surrounding formation of the order.