Ick & Ford LTD., Incorporated

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

IN THE MATTER OF ICK & FORD LTD., INCORPORATED CONSENT ORDER, ETO" IN REGARD TO Tl-m ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2( d) OF Tile CLAYTON ACT Docket 8118. Complaint, Sept. , 1960-Decision, Apr. , 1961 Consent order requiring a manufacturer of food products-including such items as dessert preparations, corn syrup, maple syrup, molasses, pie fillngs, and puddings-with annual sales exceeding $50 000, 000, to cease discriminating among its customers in violation of Sec. 2(d) of the Clayton Act, by such practices as paying a retail grocery chain with headquarters in Burlington, Iowa, the amount of $450 as compensation for advertising' in connection with the sale of its products, while not making comparable payments available to the latter s competitors. COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent JHtmBd in the caption hereof, and hereinafter Inore particularly designated and described, has violated and is now violating the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the I,obinson-Patman Act (D. C. Title 15 Section 13), hereby issues it complaint, stating its charges wit.h respect thereto as follows:

P A,RAGRAPH 1. Respondent Ponick &. Ford Lt.d., Incorporated, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of business located at 750 Third Avenue, Kew York New York.

574 FEDERAL TRADE CO;\I:::nSSION DECISIONS Decision 58 F.

P AU. 2. Respondent is now and ha,s been engaged in the manufacture, saJe lmd distribution of food products, including such items as dessert preparatjons, corn syrup, maple syrup, 11101assets, pie fillings and puddings. Respondent sells and distributes its products to wholesalers and retailers, including retail chain store organizations. esponclent' s sales of its products are substantial, exceeding $50 000 000 annually.

PAR. 3. Respondent sells and causes its products to be transported from its principal place of business in the State of ew York to customers located in other States in the United States. There has been at all times mentioned herein a. continuous course of trade in said products in COl1nY1Crce, as "commerce" is cleHJ1cd in the Clayton c\ct, as ame,ncled.

PAn. 4. In the course a.ncl conduct of its bnsine.ss in commerce and particularly since 1958, respondent paid or contracted for the payment of something of value to or for t.he benefit. of S0118 of its c.ust-omers as compensat.ion or in consideration for services or facility.ies furnished by or through such customers in c.connection with t11cir offering Ior sale or sale of products sold to them by respondent, and snc.h payments '1;(,1'e not made aVf! iIable on proportionally eqna,l terms to all other customers competing in the sale and distribution of respondent's products.

PAR. 5. For example, in the year 1959 respondent contracted to pay and did pity to Benner Tea C0111pany: a retaij grocery chain with headquarters in Burlington, lo' , the amount of U30. 00 compensation or as an allowance for achertising or other.r services or facilities furnished by or through Benner Tea Company in connection with its offering for sale or sale of products sold to it by respondent. Such compensation or (1)ownnce, ,\-as not 11ltde l1yailabJe on proportionally equal terms to an other customers competing with Benner Tea Company in the sale and distribution of products of like grade and quality purcha.sed from respondent. PAR. G. The acts and practices of respondent, as alleged, are in violation of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act. as amended by the R.obinson- Patman \.ct. ryfT. John PCTechinsky snpporting the comphint BTeecZ Ahbott ili(ytgan of r"Te,,- York N. , for respondent INITL'lL DE-CISIOX BY . TOHN B. Por mEXTER. HEARING EXAMINER The complaint in this proceeding alleges that the above-named respondent in the course and conduct or its business in commerce has violated Section 2 of the Clayton Act. as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act.

PENICK & FORD LTD. ) INCORPORATED 575 573 Order After issuance and service of the complaint, the above-named respondent, its attorneys and counsel supporting the complaint entered into an agreement for a consent order. The agreement has been approved by the Director and the Associate Director of the Bureau of Litigation. The agre81nent disposes of the matters com plained about.

The pertinent provisions of said agrccment are as follows: Respondent admits aU jurisdictional facts; the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; the order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the said agreement shall not become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission; the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and the agreement; respondent waives the requirement that the decision must contain a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; respondent waives further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, and the order may be altered, modified, or set aside in the manner provided by statute Tor ot.her orders; respondent waives any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance with the agreement and the signing of said agrcemcnt is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The undersigned hearing examiner having considered the agreement nnd proposed order, hereby accepts such agreement, 111akes the follo\\ing jurisdictional findings, and issues the follo ing order: JTISDICTION AL FINDINGS 1. Respondent, Penick & Ford Ltd., Incorporated, is a corporation existing and doing business under' a,nd by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of business located at 750 Third Avenue, :New York, New York. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceecling and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under the Clayton Act, as amended.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Penick & Ford Ltd., Incorporated a corporation, and its omcers, employees, agents and representatiycs directly or through any corporate or other device, in or in connection with the offering for sale, sHJe or dist.ribution of any of its products Complaint 58 F.

in co=erce, as "co=erce" is defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from: Paying or contra,acting for the payment or anything of value to or for the benefit of, any customer of respondent as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by or through such custo1l1er in COll18ction with the offering for sale sale or distribution or respondent's products, unless such payment or consideration is made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the distribution of such products. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ORDER TO FIL REPOR'I' OF COMl LIAXCE Pursuant to Section 3.21 of the Commission s Rules of Practice, the initial decision or the hearing examiner shall on the 12th day or April 1961, become the decision of the Commission; and, accordingly: It i8 ordered That the respondent herein shall within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, fie with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which