National Fiorita Fruit Company

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In toe MAtrer or NATIONAL FIORITA FRUIT COMPANY CUNSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(C) OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 8055. Complaint, July 26, 1960—Decision, Nov. 24, 19G0 Consent order requiring a St. Louis, Mo., distributor of citrus fruit, produce. and other fond products to cease violating Sec. 2(c) of the Clayton Act by receiving and accepting brokerage from suppliers on purchases for its own account tur resale, such as a discount of 10 cents per 184 bushel box on purchases of citrus fruit from Florida packers and lower prices reflecting commissions on many purchases.

ComMPLaINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has been and is now violating the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (U.S.C. Title 15, Section 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

Paracrarn 1. Respondent. National Fiorita Fruit Company jis a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Missouri, with its office and principal place of business located at 93-95 Produce Row, St. Louis, Missouri.

Par. 2. Respondent is now, and for the past several years has been, engaged in business primarily as a wholesale distributor, buy- NATIONAL FIORITA FRUIT CO. 1197 1196 Complaint ing, selling and distributing citrus fruit, produce and other food products, all of which are hereinafter sometimes referred to as food products. Respondent purchases its food products from a large number of suppliers located in many sections of the United States. The annual volume of business done by respondent in the purchase and sale of food products is substantial. Par. 3. In the course and conduct of its business for the past several years, respondent has purchased and distributed, and is now purchasing and distributing, food products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, from suppliers or sellers located in several states of the United States other than the State of Missouri, in which respondent is located. Respondent transports or causes such food products, when purchased, to be transported from the places of business or packing plants of its suppliers located in various other states of the United States to respondent who is located in the State of Missouri, or to respondent’s customers located in said state, or elsewhere. Thus, there has been at all times mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in commerce in the purchase of said food products across state lines between respondent and its respective suppliers of such food products.

Par. +. In the course and conduct of its business for the past several years, but, more particularly since January 1, 1959, respondent has been and jis now making substantial purchases of food products for its own account for resale from some, but not all, of its suppliers, and on a large number of these purchases respondent has received and accepted, and is now receiving and accepting, from said suppliers a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. For example, respondent makes substantial purchases of citrus fruit from a number of packers or suppliers located in the State of Florida, and receives on said purchases, a brokerage or commission, or a discount in lien thereof, usually at the rate of 10 cents per 186 bushel box, or equivalent. In many instances respondent receives a lower price from the supplier which reflects said commission or brokerage. ;

Par. 5. The acts and practices of respondent in receiving and accepting a brokerage or a commission, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, on its own purchases, as above alleged and described, are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (U.S.C. Title 15, Section 18). Mr. Cecil @. Miles and Mr. Ernest G. Barnes for the Commission. Respondent for itself.

Decision 57 F.T.C.

Inir1at Decision py ABNER E. Lirscomsp, Hearinc EXAMINER The complaint herein was issued on July 26, 1960, charging Respondent with violation of § 2(c) of the Clayton Act, as amended, (U.S.C. Title 15, § 18), by receiving and accepting a brokerage or a commission, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, on its own purchases of food products.

Thereafter, on October 8, 1960, Respondent and counsel supporting the complaint herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist, which was approved by the Associate Director and the Director of the Commission’s Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter, on October 4, 1960, submitted to the Hearing Examiner for consideration.

The agreement identifies Respondent National Fiorita Fruit Company as a Missouri corporation, with its oflice and principal place of business located at 93-95 Produce Row, St. Louis, Missouri. Respondent admits all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, and agrees that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations.

Respondent waives any further procedure before the Hearing Examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and all of the rights it may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. All parties agree that the record on which the initial decision and the decision of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; that the order to cease and desist, as contained in the agreement, when it shall have become a part of the decision of the Commission, shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner provided for other orders; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of said order; and that the agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

After consideration of the allegations of the complaint, and the provisions of the agreement and the proposed order, that. Hearing Examiner is of the opinion that such order constitutes a satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the terms of the aforesaid agreement, the Hearing Examiner accepts the Agreement Containing Consent. Order To Cease And Desist, finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respond- TELEVIDEO CORP. OF AMERICA ET AL. 1199 1196 Syllabus ent and over its acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore, It is ordered, That Respondent National Fiorita Fruit Company, a corporation, and its officers, agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the purchase of citrus fruit or other food products in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, from any seller, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lien thereof, upon or in connection with any purchase of citrus fruit or other food products for Respondent’s own account, or where Respondent is the agent, representative, or other intermediary acting for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of any buyer. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, the initial decision of the hearing examiner shall], on the 24th day of November 1960, become the decision of the Commission; and,. accordingly :

It is ordered, That. respondent National Fiorita Fruit Company, a corporation, shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist.