Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.By merging with a major competitor, American Stores Co. (American) more than doubled the number of supermarkets that it owns in California.  The State sued, claiming that the merger violates the federal antitrust laws and will harm consumers in 62 California cities.  The complaint prayed for a preliminary injunction requiring American to operate the acquired stores separately until the case is decided, and then to divest itself of all of the acquired assets located in California.  The District Court granted a preliminary injunction preventing American from integrating the operations of the two companies.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court's conclusion that California had made Page 495 U. S. 275 an adequate showing of probable success on the merits, but held that the relief granted by the District Court exceeded its authority under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 737, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 26.  In its view, the "injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage" authorized by § 16 does not encompass divestiture, and therefore the "indirect divestiture" effected by the preliminary injunction was impermissible.  872 F.2d 837 (1989).  We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over whether divestiture is a form of injunctive relief within the meaning of § 16.  493 U.S. 916 (1989).  We conclude that it is.IAmerican operates over 1,500 retail grocery stores in 40 States.  Prior to the merger, its 252 stores in California made it the fourth largest supermarket chain in that State.  Lucky Stores, Inc. (Lucky), which operated in seven Western and Midwestern States, was the largest, with 340 stores.  The second and third largest, Von's Companies and Safeway Stores, were merged in December, 1987.  697 F. Supp. 1125, 1127 (C.D.Cal.1988); Pet. for Cert. 3.On March 21, 1988, American notified the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it intended to acquire all of Lucky's outstanding stock for a price of $2.5 billion. [Footnote 1]  The FTC conducted an investigation and negotiated a settlement with American.  On May 31, it simultaneously filed both a complaint alleging that the merger violated § 7 of the Clayton Act and a proposed consent order disposing of the § 7 charges subject to certain conditions.  Among those conditions was a requirement that American comply with a "Hold Separate Agreement" preventing it from integrating the two companies' assets and operations until after it had divested itself of Page 495 U. S. 276 several designated supermarkets. [Footnote 2]  American accepted the terms of the FTC's consent order.  In early June, it acquired and paid for Lucky's stock and consummated a Delaware "short form merger."  872 F.2d  at 840; Brief for Respondent 2.  Thus, as a matter of legal form, American and Lucky were merged into a single corporate entity on June 9, 1988, but, as a matter of practical fact, their business operations have not yet been combined.On August 31, 1988, the FTC gave its final approval to the merger.  The next day, California filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  The complaint alleged that the merger violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and § 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and that the acquisition, "if consummated," would cause considerable loss and damage to the State:  competition and potential competition "in many relevant geographic markets will be eliminated," App. 61, and "the prices of food and nonfood products might be increased."  Id. at 62.  In its prayer for relief, California sought, inter alia, (1) a preliminary injunction "requiring American to hold and operate separately from American all of Lucky's California assets and businesses pending final adjudication of the merits"; (2) "such injunctive relief, including rescission . . . as is necessary and appropriate to prevent the effects" alleged in the complaint; and "(5) an injunction requiring American to divest itself of all of Lucky's assets and businesses in the State of California."  Id. at 65, 66-67. Page 495 U. S. 277The District Court granted California's motion for a temporary restraining order and, after considering extensive statistical evidence, entered a preliminary injunction.  Without reaching the Sherman Act claim, the court concluded that the State had proved a prima facie violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act.  On the question of relief, the District Court found that the State had made an adequate showing "that Californians will be irreparably harmed if the proposed merger is completed," 697 F. Supp.  at 1134, and that the harm the State would suffer if the merger was not enjoined "far outweighs" the harm that American will suffer as the result of an injunction.  Id. at 1135.  The court also rejected American's argument that the requested relief was foreclosed by a prior decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that divestiture is not a remedy authorized by § 16 of the Clayton Act.  American contended that the proposed injunction was "tantamount to divestiture," since the merger of the two companies had already been completed, but the District Court disagreed.  It held that, since the FTC's "Hold Separate Agreement" was still in effect, the transaction was not a completed merger. [Footnote 3]American filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1982 ed.).  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit first held that the District Court had not abused its discretion in finding that California had proved a likelihood of success on the merits and the probability of irreparable harm.  Nevertheless, on the authority of its earlier decision in International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 518 F.2d 913 (1975) (IT&T), Page 495 U. S. 278 it set aside the injunction.  The Court of Appeals reasoned that its own prior decisions established both "that divestiture is not an available remedy in private actions under § 16 of the Clayton Act'" and that"section 16 does not permit indirect divestiture, that is, an injunction which on its face does not order divestiture but which has the same effect.  IT & T, 518 F.2d  at 924."872 F.2d  at 844.  The Court of Appeals applied this rule to conclude that the injunction issued by the District Court was legally impermissible.  Observing that, under the injunction, "these stores must operate as if Lucky had never been acquired by American Stores at all," the Court of Appeals held that "[s]uch an injunction requires indirect divestiture."  Id. at 845.  Finally, the Court of Appeals added that the District Court had "compounded its misapprehension of the law of divestiture" by misunderstanding "the legal status of the merger."  Specifically, the District Court erred by concluding that the "FTC's consent order" undid "the legal effect of this merger" which "had already taken place" according to Delaware corporation law.  Ibid.On California's application, JUSTICE O'CONNOR entered a stay continuing the District Court's injunction pending further review by this Court.  492 U. S. 1301.  We then granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between this decision and the earlier holding of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc. v. ARCO Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404 (1985).  We now reverse.IIIn its IT & T opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the term "injunctive relief" as used in § 16 is ambiguous, and that it is necessary to review the statute's legislative history to determine whether it includes divestiture.  Then, based on its reading of a colloquy during a hearing before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, it concluded that the draftsmen of the bill did not intend to authorize the remedies of Page 495 U. S. 279 "dissolution" or "divestiture" in actions brought by private litigants.  518 F.2d  at 921-922.  The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has rejected that reasoning.  It found instead that a fair reading of the statutory text, buttressed by recognized canons of construction, [Footnote 4] required a construction of the words "injunctive relief" broad enough to encompass divestiture.  Moreover, it doubted whether the references to "dissolution" in the legislative history referred to "divestiture," and did not consider this evidence sufficiently probative, in any event, to justify a restrictive reading of the Act that seemed inconsistent with its basic policy.  754 F.2d  at 415-428.American endorses the analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but places greater reliance on two additional arguments.  First, it argues that there is a significant difference between the text of § 15 of the Act, which authorizes equitable relief in actions brought by the United States, and the text of § 16, which applies to other parties.  Specifically, it argues that the former is broad enough to encourage "structural relief," whereas the latter is limited to relief against anticompetitive "conduct."  Second, reading § 16 in its historical context, American argues that it reflects a well accepted distinction between prohibitory injunctions (which are authorized) and mandatory injunctions (which, American argues, are not).American's argument directs us to two provisions in the statutory text, and that is the natural place to begin our analysis.  Section 15 grants the federal district courts jurisdiction "to prevent and restrain violations of this Act" when Page 495 U. S. 280 United States attorneys "institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations" through petitions "praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited." [Footnote 5]  Section 16 entitles"[a]ny person, firm, corporation, or association . . . to sue for and have injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws . . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity. [Footnote 6]"It is agreed that the general language of § 15, which provides that antitrust violations "shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited," is broad enough to authorize divestiture.  Indeed, in Government actions divestiture is the preferred Page 495 U. S. 281 remedy for an illegal merger or acquisition. As we wrote in the Du Pont case:"Divestiture or dissolution has traditionally been the remedy for Sherman Act violations whose heart is intercorporate combination and control, and it is reasonable to think immediately of the same remedy when § 7 of the Clayton Act, which particularizes the Sherman Act standard of illegality, is involved.  Of the very few litigated § 7 cases which have been reported, most decreed divestiture as a matter of course.  Divestiture has been called the most important of antitrust remedies.  It is simple, relatively easy to administer, and sure.  It should always be in the forefront of a court's mind when a violation of § 7 has been found."United States v. E.1. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U. S. 316,  366 U. S. 329-331 (1961) (footnotes omitted).On its face, the simple grant of authority in § 16 to "have injunctive relief" would seem to encompass divestiture just as plainly as the comparable language in § 15.  Certainly § 16's reference to "injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage" differs from § 15's grant of jurisdiction to "prevent and restrain violations," but it obviously does not follow that one grant encompasses remedies excluded from the other. [Footnote 7]  Indeed, we think it could plausibly be argued that § 16's terms are the more expansive.  In any event, however, as the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit correctly observed, § 16"states no restrictions or exceptions to the forms of injunctive relief a private plaintiff may seek, or that a court may order. . . .  Rather, the statutory language indicates Congress' intention that traditional principles of equity govern the grant of injunctive relief."754 F.2d at Page 495 U. S. 282 416.  We agree that the plain text of § 16 authorizes divestiture decrees to remedy § 7 violations.American rests its contrary argument upon two phrases in § 16 that arguably narrow its scope.  The entitlement "to sue for and have injunctive relief" affords relief "against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws."  Moreover, the right to such relief exists"when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity. . . ."In this case, however, the requirement of "threatened loss or damage" is unquestionably satisfied.  The allegations of the complaint, the findings of the district court, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals all assume that, even if the merger is a completed violation of law, the threatened harm to California consumers persists.  If divestiture is an appropriate means of preventing that harm, the statutory reference to "threatened loss or damage" surely does not negate the Court's power to grant such relief. [Footnote 8]The second phrase, which refers to "threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage," is not drafted as a limitation on the power to grant relief, but rather is a part of the general reference to the standards that should be applied in fashioning injunctive relief.  It is surely not the equivalent of a directive stating that unlawful conduct may be prohibited, but structural relief may not be mandated.  Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit's analysis of the issue demonstrates, the distinction between conduct and structure -- or between prohibitory and mandatory relief -- is illusory in a case of this kind.  Thus, in the IT & T case, the Court recognized that an injunction prohibiting Page 495 U. S. 283 the parent company from voting the stock of the subsidiary should not be treated differently from a mandatory order of divestiture. [Footnote 9]  And in this case the court treated the "Hold Separate Agreement" as a form of "indirect divestiture."  In both cases, the injunctive relief would unquestionably prohibit "conduct" by the defendants.  American's textual arguments -- which rely on a distinction between mandatory and prohibitive relief -- do not explain why such remedies would not be appropriate. [Footnote 10]If we assume that the merger violated the antitrust laws, and if we agree with the District Court's finding that the conduct of the merged enterprise threatens economic harm to California consumers, the literal text of § 16 is plainly sufficient to authorize injunctive relief, including an order of divestiture, that will prohibit that conduct from causing that harm.  This interpretation is consistent with our precedents, which have upheld injunctions issued pursuant to § 16 regardless of whether they were mandatory or prohibitory in character.  See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100,  395 U. S. 129-133 (1969) (reinstating injunction that required defendants to withdraw from patent pools); see also Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341,  373 U. S. 345, 365 (1963) (reinstating judgment for defendants in suit to compel Page 495 U. S. 284 installation of wire services).  We have recognized when construing § 16 that it was enacted "not merely to provide private relief, but . . . to serve as well the high purpose of enforcing the antitrust laws."  Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at  395 U. S. 130-131.  We have accordingly applied the section"with this purpose in mind, and with the knowledge that the remedy it affords, like other equitable remedies, is flexible and capable of nice 'adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims.'"Ibid., quoting Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321,  321 U. S. 329-330 (1944).Finally, by construing § 16 to encompass divestiture decrees, we are better able than is American to harmonize the section with its statutory context.  The Act's other provisions manifest a clear intent to encourage vigorous private litigation against anticompetitive mergers.  Section 7 itself creates a relatively expansive definition of antitrust liability:  to show that a merger is unlawful, a plaintiff need only prove that its effect "may be substantially to lessen competition."  Clayton Act § 7, 38 Stat. 731, 15 U.S.C. § 18 (emphasis supplied).  See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294,  370 U. S. 323 (1962).  In addition, § 5 of the Act provided that, during the pendency of a government action, the statute of limitations for private actions would be tolled.  The section also permitted plaintiffs to use the final judgment in a government antitrust suit as prima facie evidence of liability in a later civil suit.  Private enforcement of the Act was in no sense an afterthought; it was an integral part of the congressional plan for protecting competition.  See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co., 381 U. S. 311,  381 U. S. 318 (1965).  Congress also made express its view that divestiture was the most suitable remedy in a suit for relief from a § 7 violation:  in § 11 of the Act, Congress directed the Federal Trade Commission to issue orders requiring that a violator of § 7 "cease and desist from the violation," and, specifically, that the violator Page 495 U. S. 285 "divest itself of the stock held" in violation of the Act. [Footnote 11]  Section 16, construed to authorize a private divestiture remedy when appropriate in light of equitable principles, fits well in a statutory scheme that favors private enforcement, subjects mergers to searching scrutiny, and regards divestiture as the remedy best suited to redress the ills of an anticompetitive merger.IIIAlthough we do not believe the statutory language is ambiguous, we nonetheless consider the legislative history that persuaded the Ninth Circuit to place a narrow construction on § 16.  To understand that history, however, it is necessary to place the statute in its historical perspective.The Sherman Act became law just a century ago.  It matured some 15 years later, when, under the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, the Sherman Act"was finally being used against trusts of the dimension that had called it into Page 495 U. S. 286 being, and with enough energy to justify the boast that the President was using a big stick."W. Letwin, Page 495 U. S. 287 Law and Economic Policy in America 240 (1965).  Two of the most famous prosecutions concluded in 1911, with decisions from this Court endorsing the "Rule of Reason" as the principal guide to the construction of the Sherman Act's general language.  Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U. S. 1; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106 (1911).  In consequence of the violations found in those two cases, wide-ranging injunctions were entered requiring the separation of the "oil trust" and the "tobacco trust" into a number of independent, but still significant, companies.  The relief granted received mixed reviews.  In some quarters, the cases were hailed as great triumphs over the forces of monopoly; in others, they were regarded as pyrrhic victories. [Footnote 12]Concern about the adequacy of the Sherman Act's prohibition against combinations in restraint of trade prompted President Wilson to make a special address to Congress in 1914 recommending that the antitrust laws be strengthened.  2 The New Democracy, The Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson 81-89 (R. Baker & W. Dodd eds. 1926).  Congressman Clayton, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, promptly appointed a subcommittee to prepare the legislation.  The bill drafted by the subcommittee contained most of the provisions that were eventually enacted into the law now known as the Clayton Act.  The statute reenacted certain provisions of the Sherman Act and added new provisions of both a substantive and procedural character.  Letwin, Law and Economic Policy in America, at 272-273; 2 A. Link, Wilson:  The New Freedom 426 (1956).  Thus, § 4 of the Sherman Act, which authorizes equitable relief in actions brought by the United States, was reenacted as § 15 of the Clayton Act, while § 16 filled a gap in the Sherman Act by authorizing equitable relief in private actions.  Section 7 of the Clayton Act made stock acquisitions of competing companies more vulnerable, and §§ 4 and 5 gave special procedural advantages to private litigants.  The reform project had broad social significance, and it is obvious that the Act as a whole is fairly characterized as important remedial legislation.Some proponents of reform, however, were critical of the bill for not going further.  Thus, for example, proposals that were never enacted would have expressly authorized private individuals to bring suit for the dissolution of corporations adjudged to have violated the law, and for appointment of receivers to wind up the corporation's affairs. [Footnote 13]  Samuel Untermyer, a New York lawyer who urged Congress to give private plaintiffs express authority to seek dissolution decrees, stated his views in a colloquy with Congressman John Floyd during a hearing on the bill before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.  Floyd told Untermyer that"We did not intend by section 13 to give the individual the same power to bring a suit to dissolve the corporation that the Government has,"and added that the committee Members Page 495 U. S. 288 had discussed the matter very thoroughly.  Untermyer replied that"the very relief that the man needs nine times out of ten is the dissolution of the corporation, because, . . . it may not be doing any specific act of illegality, but its very existence, in violation of law, is the thing that is injuring him."Hearings on Trust Legislation before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 63d Congress, 2nd Sess. 842-846 (1914) (House Hearings).Two weeks later, Louis Brandeis, testifying on behalf of the administration before the same committee, was asked whether he favored a proposal"to give the individual the right to file a bill in equity for the dissolution of one of these combinations, the same right which the Government now has and which it is its duty to perform."Brandeis responded that the proposal was not sound, and added:"It seems to me that the right to change the status [of the combination], which is the right of dissolution, is a right which ought to be exercised only by the Government, although the right for full redress for grievances and protection against future wrongs is a right which every individual ought to enjoy.""Now, all of this procedure ought to be made so as to facilitate, so far as possible, the enforcement of the law in aid, on the one hand, of the Government, and in aid, on the other hand, of the individual.  But that fundamental principle is correct, that the Government ought to have the right, and the sole right, to determine whether the circumstances are such as to call for a dissolution of an alleged trust."Id. at 649-650.American relies on these exchanges to support two slightly different arguments.  First, it suggests that the committee recognized a distinction between relief directed at conduct and relief that is designed to change a company's status or structure.  Second, it suggests that Congressman Floyd's statements permit an inference that the Congress as a whole rejected the possibility of a private dissolution remedy, and Page 495 U. S. 289 thereby rejected divestiture as well, because divestiture is a species of dissolution.  Neither suggestion is persuasive.We have already concluded that the suggested distinction between divestiture and injunctions that prohibit future conduct is illusory.  These excerpts, moreover, from the legislative history provide even less support for such a categorical distinction than does the text of § 16 itself.The flaw in American's second suggestion is its assumption that the dissolution proposals submitted to Congress contemplated nothing more extreme than divestiture.  Dissolution could be considerably more awesome.  As the New York Court of Appeals ominously declared before affirming a decree against the North River Sugar Refining Company, dissolution was a "judgment . . . of corporate death," which "represent[ed] the extreme rigor of the law." [Footnote 14]  This meaning is evident from the text of the Senate amendment proposing private dissolution suits, which provided for a receiver to administer the doomed corporation's assets. [Footnote 15] Page 495 U. S. 290The concept of dissolution, of course, also encompassed remedies comparable to divestiture, or to our present-day understanding of dissolution. [Footnote 16]  It was one thing to dissolve a Page 495 U. S. 291 pool, trust, combination, or a merger, and quite another to atomize, or to revoke the charter of, a large corporation. [Footnote 17]  In the early part of this century, however, new forms of corporate organization were arising at a pace that outstripped the vocabulary used to describe them. [Footnote 18]  Concern about monopoly and competition dominated domestic politics, but people disagreed about what these things were, and about why, and to what extent, they were good or bad. [Footnote 19]  Men like McReynolds, Wilson's Attorney General, and Brandeis, the President's chief adviser on antitrust policy, could concur upon the need for forceful antitrust legislation and prosecution while finding themselves parted -- as their later battles on this Court made clear -- by a vast gulf in their understandings of economic theory and marketplace ethics. [Footnote 20]  Absent Page 495 U. S. 292 agreement on the terms of debate, dissolution could mean the corporate death sentence, or the decrees of the Standard Oil and American Tobacco cases, or something else. [Footnote 21]  So long as this ambiguity persisted, dissolution had to be considered a public remedy, one that encompassed a power peculiarly suited to transgressions so "material and serious" as to "harm or menace the public welfare" in a manner transcending the "quarrels of private litigants." [Footnote 22]  For those like Brandeis, who viewed dissolution as desirable only if treated not as a moral penalty but rather as a necessary economic remedy, [Footnote 23] it would be imprudent to allow private parties to control a weapon potentially so lethal.  Although it may now be second nature to conceive of dissolution in economic terms compatible with the policy Brandeis championed, [Footnote 24] this view was anything but uncontroversial when the Act was drafted. [Footnote 25]Once the historical importance of the distinction between dissolution and divestiture is understood, American's argument from the legislative history becomes singularly unpersuasive.  The rejection of a proposed remedy that would terminate the corporate existence of American and appoint a Page 495 U. S. 293 receiver to supervise the disposition of its assets is surely not the equivalent of the rejection of a remedy that would merely rescind a purchase of stock or assets.  Dissolution was too vague and ill-defined a remedy to be either incorporated into or excluded from § 16 as such; Congress instead sensibly avoided the problematic word and spoke in terms of equitable relief drawn to redress damage or loss which a private party might suffer by consequence of the Act's violation. [Footnote 26]  That divestiture was encompassed within the concept of dissolution as understood at the time of the Clayton Act's framing does not imply that the equitable formulation of § 16 cannot permit divestiture while excluding more severe sanctions that also traveled under the name "dissolution."For similar reasons, we need not consider how much weight might otherwise be due to Graves v. Cambria Steel Co., 298 F. 761 (NY 1924), a brief district court decision by Judge Learned Hand upon which American relies heavily. [Footnote 27]  The suit appears to have been brought by dissatisfied shareholders of a target corporation who wished to dissolve the new merged entity.  The plaintiffs sought relief Page 495 U. S. 294 under § 16 of the Clayton Act.  Judge Hand remarked that the suit"is really a suit for the dissolution of a monopoly pro tanto.  I cannot suppose that anyone would argue that a private suit for dissolution would lie under section 16 of the Clayton Act."298 F.  at 762.  Not only does Hand, like Floyd, Untermyer, and Brandeis before him, refer to dissolution rather than divestiture, but moreover the state corporation law overtones of the inchoate complaint make it possible that the suit implicated the more drastic forms of dissolution.The inferences that American draws from its excerpts from the subcommittee hearings simply are not confirmed by anything that has been called to our attention in the Committee Reports, the floor debates, the Conference Report, or contemporaneous judicial interpretations. [Footnote 28]  Indeed, a fair reading of the entire legislative history supports the conclusion that § 16 means exactly what it says when it endorses the "conditions and principles" governing injunctive relief in courts of equity:  that the provision should be construed generously and flexibly pursuant to principles of equity.  See Page 495 U. S. 295 Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc., 754 F.2d  at 418-427.  As the Court stated in Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321,  321 U. S. 329 (1944):"The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case.  Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it."More recently, in Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305,  456 U. S. 313 (1982), we observed that, when Congress endows the federal courts with equitable jurisdiction, Congress acts aware of this longstanding tradition of flexibility."'Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied.'"Id., quoting Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395,  328 U. S. 398 (1946).  These principles unquestionably support a construction of the statute that will enable a chancellor to impose the most effective, usual and straightforward remedy to rescind an unlawful purchase of stock of assets.  The fact that the term "divestiture" is used to describe what is typically nothing more than the familiar remedy of rescission does not place the remedy beyond the normal reach of the chancellor.IVOur conclusion that a district court has the power to order divestiture in appropriate cases brought under § 16 of the Clayton Act does not, of course, mean that such power should be exercised in every situation in which the Government would be entitled to such relief under § 15.  In a Government case, the proof of the violation of law may itself establish sufficient public injury to warrant relief.   See Du Pont, 366 U.S. at  366 U. S. 319-321; see also Virginia R. Co. v. Railway Employees, 300 U. S. 515,  300 U. S. 552 (1937) ("Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved"); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U. S. 16,  310 U. S. 30-31 (1940) Page 495 U. S. 296 (authorizing issuance of injunction at Government's request without balancing of the equities).  A private litigant, however, must have standing -- in the words of § 16, he must prove "threatened loss or damage" to his own interests in order to obtain relief.  See Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U. S. 104 (1986).  Moreover, equitable defenses such as laches, or perhaps "unclean hands," may protect consummated transactions from belated attacks by private parties when it would not be too late for the Government to vindicate the public interest.Such questions, however, are not presented in this case.  We are merely confronted with the naked question whether the District Court had the power to divest American of any part of its ownership interests in the acquired Lucky Stores, either by forbidding the exercise of the owner's normal right to integrate the operations of the two previously separate companies or by requiring it to sell certain assets located in California.  We hold that such a remedy is a form of "injunctive relief" within the meaning of § 16 of the Clayton Act.  Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.It is so ordered
U.S. Supreme CourtCalifornia v. American Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990)California v. American Stores CompanyNo. 89-258Argued Jan. 19, 1990Decided April 30, 1990495 U.S. 271SyllabusShortly after respondent American Stores Co., the fourth largest supermarket chain in California, acquired all of the outstanding stock of the largest chain, the State filed suit in the District Court alleging, inter alia, that the merger constituted an anticompetitive acquisition violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act, and would harm consumers throughout the State.  The court granted the State a preliminary injunction requiring American to operate the acquired stores separately pending resolution of the suit.  Although agreeing that the State had proved a likelihood of success on the merits and the probability of irreparable harm, the Court of Appeals set aside the injunction on the ground that the relief granted exceeded the District Court's authority under § 16 of the Act to order "injunctive relief."  The court relied on an earlier decision in which it had concluded, on the basis of its reading of excerpts from subcommittee hearings, that § 16's draftsmen did not intend to authorize the remedies of "dissolution" or "divestiture" in private litigants' actions.  Thus, held the court, the "indirect divestiture" effected by the preliminary injunction was impermissible.Held:  Divestiture is a form of "injunctive relief" authorized by § 16.  Pp.  495 U. S. 278-296.(a) The plain text of § 16 -- which entitles"[a]ny person . . . to . . . have injunctive relief . . . against threatened loss or damage . . . when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity"-- authorizes divestiture decrees to remedy § 7 violations.  On its face, the simple grant of authority to "have injunctive relief" would seem to encompass that remedy just as plainly as the comparable language in § 15 of the Act, which authorizes the district courts to "prevent and restrain violations" in antitrust actions brought by the United States, and under which divestiture is the preferred remedy for illegal mergers.  Moreover, § 16 states no restrictions or exceptions to the forms of injunctive relief a private plaintiff may seek or a court may order, but, rather, evidences Congress' intent that traditional equitable principles govern the grant of such relief.  The section's "threatened loss or damage" phrase does not negate the court's power to order divestiture.  Assuming, as did the lower courts, that the merger in question violated the Page 495 U. S. 272 antitrust laws, and that the conduct of the merged enterprise threatens economic harm to consumers, such relief would prohibit that conduct from causing that harm.  Nor does the section's "threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage" phrase limit the court's power to the granting of relief against anticompetitive "conduct," as opposed to "structural relief," or to the issuance of prohibitory, rather than mandatory, injunctions.  That phrase is simply a part of the general reference to the standards that should be applied in fashioning injunctive relief.  Section 16, construed to authorize a private divestiture remedy, fits well in a statutory scheme that favors private enforcement, subjects mergers to searching scrutiny, and regards divestiture as the remedy best suited to redress the ills of an anticompetitive merger.  Pp.  495 U. S. 278-285.(b) The legislative history does not require that § 16 be construed narrowly.  American's reliance on the subcommittee hearing excerpts cited by the Court of Appeals and on Graves v. Cambria Steel Co., 298 F. 761 (1924) -- each of which contains statements indicating that private suits for dissolution do not lie under § 16 -- is misplaced.  At the time of the Act's framing, dissolution was a vague and ill-defined concept that encompassed the drastic remedy of corporate termination as well as divestiture.  Thus, the fact that Congress may have excluded the more severe sanction does not imply that the equitable formulation of § 16 cannot permit divestiture.  Since the inferences that American draws simply are not confirmed by anything else in the legislative history or contemporaneous judicial interpretation, § 16 must be taken at its word when it endorses the "conditions and principles" governing injunctive relief in equity courts.  There being nothing in the section that restricts, courts' equitable jurisdiction, the provision should be construed generously and flexibly to enable a chancellor to impose the most effective, usual, and straightforward remedy to rescind an unlawful stock purchase.  Pp.  495 U. S. 285-295.(c) Simply because a district court has the power to order divestiture in appropriate § 16 cases does not mean that it should do so in every situation in which the Government would be entitled to such relief under § 15.  A private litigant must establish standing by proving "threatened loss or damage" to his own interests, and his suit may be barred by equitable defenses such as laches or "unclean hands."  Pp.  495 U. S. 295-296.872 F.2d 837, (CA 9 1989), reversed and remanded.STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.  KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p.  495 U. S. 296. Page 495 U. S. 273Page 495 U. S. 274