ANTI-TRUST SUIT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26607, 1 November 1947, Page 7

ANTI-TRUST SUIT

NEW YORK BANKING FIRMS STATE ALLEGES MONOPOLY CONSPIRACY Rec. 9 p.m. WASHINGTON, Oct. 30. The Attorney-general, Mr Tom Clark, announced to-day that he was filing an anti-trust suit against 17 ot the largest investment banking firms in New York. The suit charges a conspiracy to monopolise handling of security issues. In addition, the Government asks for the dissolution of the Investment Bankers’ Association of America, which maintains its headquarters in Chicago. Mr Clark said the suit was “one of the largest and most important in tne history of antitiust laws.” The complaint alleges that the 17 banking firms “have conspired to restrain unreasonably and monopolise the security business in this country by restricting, controlling and fixing the channels and methods, prices, terms and conditions upon which Security issues are merchandised.” The securities are described in the suit as covering “ stocks, notes, bonds, debentures or other interest certifiThe defendants were named as Mor-. gan Staley and Co., Kuhn Loeb and Co., Eastman Dillon and Co., Kidder Feabody and Co., Goldman Sachs and Co., Lehman Brotheis, Smith Barney ana Co., Glore Forgan and Co., White Weld and Co., Drezel and Co., the First Boston Corporation, Dillon Read and Co., Incorporated, Blyth and Co., Incorporated, Harriman Ripley and Co., Incorporated. Stone and Webster Securities Coloration, Harris, Hall and Co., Incorporated, and Union Securities Corporation. The charges were quickly denied by the leading firms. Colonel A. M. Pope, presidenx of the First Boston Corporation, for instance, stated: “We find nothing in our procedures to warrant the charges by the Attorney-general.” Mr Harold Stanley, a Morgan Stanley partner, said: “The charges are not true. Our business is the most competitive and most regulated I know of.”