Lake Hamilton Cooperative, Inc.

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

IN THE )fatter OF LAKE I-IA)IILTOK COOPERATIVE, IXC.

CONSENT OlilER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (c) OF TIn; CLAYTON ACT Docket 8013. Complaint, June 1960-Decision, May, 1961 Consent order requiring a Lake Hamilton, Fla. , packer of citrus fruit to cease violating Sec. 2(c) of the Clayton Act by paying brolwrage, 01' its equivalent, to customers making purchases for their o\vn accounts for resale. C01\IPLAIXT 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 viohting the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended ('G. S. C. Title 15, Section 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows: PAHAGHAPII 1. Hesponclent Lake Hamilton Cooperat.ive, Inc" hereinafter sometimes referred to as respondent or respondent I-Iamilton, is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Stlte of Florida, with its offce and principal place of business located at Lake :Hamilton, Florida. Pall 2. Responde-nt is now and for the past several years has been engaged in the business of packing, selling, and distributing citrus fruit, sl1Gh as oranges: tangerines, and grapefruit: as well as other fruit products, all of \which are hereinafter sometimes referred to as citrus fruit or fruit products. Hespondtmt. sells and (listributes its citrus fruit through brokers as Iyel1 as direct, to customers located in many sections of the Uniteel States. ",Yhen 6S1-23i--63- Decision 38 F.

brokers are utilized in making sales for it, the respondent pays them for their services a brokerage or commission, usually at the rate of 10 cents per 1% bushel box. R.respondent's annual volume of business in the sa.le and distribution of citrus fruit is substantial. P AU. 3. In the course and conduct of its business over the past scleral years, respondent has sold and distributed and is now selling a.nd distributing its citrus fruit in commerce, as ;'commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, to buyers 10cat.ed in the several states of t.he United States other than the State of Florida in which respondent is located. Respondent transports or causes such citrus fruit, when sold, to be transported from its place of business or paeking plant in the State of Florida, or from other places within the state, to such buyers or to the buyers ' customers located in various other states of the lJnited States. In many instances respondent sells to brokers or buyers located in the State of Florida, but ships or causes the citrus fruit and fruit products to be shipped to t.he buyers' customers outsi(1e of said state. Thus. there has been at a11 times mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in commerce in said citrus fruit across state lines between said respondent and the respective buyers of such fruit. PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business as a.foresaid for the past several years, but. more particularly since ,January 1 , 1959 respondent has been and is now making numerous and substantial sales of citrus fruit to some, but not all, of its brokers and direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resale, and Oll a large llumber of these sales respondent paid, granted, or allmyec1: and is now paying, granting, or allowing, to these brokers and direct lJuye1'S on their purchases, a commission, brokerage, or other compensalion, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith.

\H. 3. The ltcts and practices of respondent in paying: granting, or allowing a brokerage or commission, or a discount or an allowanee in lieu thereof, to buyers on purchases for their 01'111 flccount as hereinltbove aJlegec1 and described, are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amenrled (U. c. Title L' Section 13).

ivh' . Cecil G. Jlfiles and j11T. ET'nest G. Bcwnes for the Commission. Smith cD PettC1vay, by JfT. Gm'don Pettewny, of Lakeland, Fla" for respondent.

IXlTL-\.L DECISION BY ABXEH E. LIPSCOJIB: HE.\RIXG Ex AlIlKER The complaint herein was issued on Tunc 27, 1960. charging Respondent. with violation 01' S2(c) of the Clayton Act: as amended LAKE HAlvlILTOX COOPERATIVE , IKC. 931 929 Decisioll by paying, granting, or allowing commission, brokerage. compensation, or an aDowance or discount in lieu thereof, to certain of its brokers and direct buyers, on purchases for their o\vn account for resale.

Thereafter, on January 4, 1961, Respondent, its counsel, and COUllsel supporting the complaint. herein entered into an Agreement Containing Consent. Order To Cease And Desist, which was approved by the Director and Associate Director of the Commission Bureau of Litigation, and thereafter, on January 9, 1961 , submitted to the hearing Examiner for consideration. Attached to and made a part of the agreement is a stipulation entered into by the same parties for the purpose of making clear beyond any possible doubt the intent of the complaint and of the proposed order to cease and desist.

The agreement identifies Respondent Lake I-Iamiltol1 Cooperati,- 111C. as a Florida corporation, with its offce and principal place of business located in Lake Hamilton, Florida. Respondent admits all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the COInplaint, 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 01' contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entereel 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 \vhen it shall have become a part of the decision of the COllmission, :3ha,ll have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, and may be a1terec1 modified or set aside in the manner provjcled for other orders; that the complaint herein may be used in construing the terms of saiel order; and that the agreement is for settlement purpo:3es only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the C0111. plaint.

After consideration of the allegations of the complaint, and the prmTisions of the agreement. and the proposed order, the II-hearing Examjner is of the opinion that such order constit.ules a. satisfactory disposition of this proceeding. Accordingly, in consonance with the terms 01 the aforesaid agreement, the Hearing Examiner accepts the, Agreement Containing Consent Order To Cease And Desist; 932 PEDEHAL TRADB COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

finds that the Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondent and over its acts and practices as alleged in the complaint; and finds that this proceeding is in the public interest. Therefore It i8 ordered That the Respondent Lake Hamilton Cooperative Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representatives and employees, dire-ctly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of citrus fruit or fruit products in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Pating, granting or allowing, directly or indirectly, to any buyer or to anyone acting for or in behalf of, or who is subject to the direct or indirect control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection with the sale of citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his own account. DECISION 01" THE CO::IMISSIO AND OHDEn TO FILE m:PORT 01- COl\PLL\KCE The Commission having now determined that the hearing examiner s initial deeision, filed .January 17 , 1961 , is adequate and appropriate to dispose of this proceeding:

It is orcle'fed That said decision be, and it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is JUTtheT orde''el That the respondent shah, within sixty (60) , file -with the, COlnmission fldays after service upon it of this order report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied \\ith the order to cease and desist contained in the a,foresaid ini6al decision.