Independent Exhibitors Film Bulletin (1948)

BULLETIN Volume 16. Number 10 May 10, 1948 News and Opinion 'Itl ^ Supreme Court Opinion Means Drastic Divestiture The lawyers for the Big Five have been hf-pefully searching the Supreme Court's opinion in the Monopoly Case for crumbs of comfort to feed their clients. But the pickin's appear to be mighty, mighty small. There was no doubt about it. The nation's highest court of law had ordered the New York District Court to find for divestiture — the only question was one of degree — and any possibility that it would be only a minor degree did not seem to be borne out by the tough temper of the decision, nor by the legal spanking it administered to the lower court for its "deficient" decree. The ultimate decision appears destined to be drastic divestiture. No one in the ranks of the five theatreowning majors is really sanguine about the decision. It seems inescapable that they will be able to retain, at best, only a small segment of their theatre chains. Every executive who Read A. F. Myers" keen analysis of the high court's decisions in THE SUPREME COURT SPEAKS starting on Page 7 doesn't make it a practice always to keep a lawyer on his lap is reconciled to large-scale divestiture. They hope only to salvage what they can. NO LOOPHOLE Nor was there a loophole left for the Big Five to transfer their theatres to members of the executive family, for, at the same time, the Supreme Court sounded the death knell of indepcndcnt theatre monopolies. On the same day (May 3) that the ruling in the major Monopoly Case was handed down, two of the largest non-affiliated theatre chains in the country sufifered what may be fatal consequences of the anti-trust laws. The Supreme Court held the Schine and Griffith circuits guilty of conspiracy to monopolize and restrain tiade, and remanded both cases to their respecti\e District Courts for further findings, with firm instructions to write decrees that will effectively break their monopolistic powers. 'UNDO WRONGS' In the Griffith opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Oklahoma District Court and urged a decree "which will undo as near as may be the wrongs that were done and prevent their recurrence in the future." The Buffalo District Court's decision ordering partial divestiture in the Schine case was found to be inadequate and more drastic remedy suggested. THE SUPREME COURT They Left l\o Doubt WINNER GOLDMAN Pav Him! The Court Said By the temper of its opinions in these three vital cases, as well as in the Goldman case, the Supreme Court of the United States made it crystal clear that the motion picture industry would be required by the law of the land radica'l\ to revise certain of its old methods of operation. Legal Path Cleared For Goldman's $8,000,000 Suit The defendants cried that unless the Philadclpliia courts were reversed in their decision granting William Goldman S125,000 treble damages (total $375,000, plus a $60,000 fee for counsel William A. Gray), the whole film industry faced "ruin." The Supreme Court was unimpressed. Pay him, it said, and the floodgates of what may be an overwhelming tide of anti-trust suits were opened against the majors. Goldman, himself, has a whopping $8,400,000 suit pending, based directly on the case he just won. His initial award against the 8 majors and the Warner Theatres circuit was the penalty for their refusal to allow him any first-run product for his Erlanger Theatre in downtown Philly from 1940 to 1942. Now, he seeks compiiisation for the years '42 to '46. It is understood that the defendants had a chance to settle Goldman's suit some years ago for a fraction of what it will cost them, but, they say, Harry M. Warner made it a personal Ci'usade to lick the man who was once in charge of \\'B's Philadelphia chain. However, it seems that dynamic Bill Goldman takes a lot of licking. He has a crusade of his own: to lick the "film industry monopoly." More A'czi's and Opinion, Pacjc 9 MAY 10, 1948 5