Dr Giorgio Fruit Corporation

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

IN THE j\iatter OF Dr GIORGIO FRUIT CORPORATIO"

CONSENT Order, ETC., IX REGARD TO THE ALl,EGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(c) OF THE CLAYTON ACT May 1961 Docket 81.41. Complaint, Oct. 17, 1960-Decision, Consent order requiring a San Francisco, Calif., packer of fruits, vegetables and citrus juices, also producing wine products, and operating a Florida Division at Fort Pierce, :F'la., to cease violating Sec. 2 (c) of the Clayton Act by paying brokerage, or its equivalent, to customers making purchases of citrus fruit for their own accounts for resale. CO:\IPLAIKT 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 (D. C. Title 15 , Section 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows: P ARAGRAPI- 1. H.respondent Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation is a corporation organized, existing a,nd doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its offce and principeJ place of business, located at 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco '1 California.

Respondent Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation owns and operates a Florida Division located at Fort Pierce" Florida, with mailing address as Post Offce Box 1352, Fort Pierce, Florida. PAR. 2. R,respondent Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation for many years has been\ and is now, engaged in business as a grower, packer and 960 FEDERAL TRADE CO:1:CnSSIO DECISIONS Complaint 58 F.

shipper of fruits and vegetables, and as a canner and processor of citrus juices. Respondent is also engaged ill business as a producer ,md distributor of wine products.

Respondent's sales of al1 products are substantial, and its sales of fresh fruit approximated $1 000 000 in 1959. P AU. 3. Respondent, through its Florida Division as above described, is now a,nel for the past several years has been engaged in the business of packing, selling and distributing citrus fruit, such as oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit, all of "which arc hereinafter sometimes referred to as citrus fruit or fruit products. Respondent sells and distributes its citrus fruit through brokers, as wen as direct, to customers located in many sections of the United States. ,,"Then brokers are utilized in making sales for it, respondent pays them for their services a brokera,ge or commission, usually at the rate of 10 cents pcr 1% bushel box, or equivalent. Respondent' annual volume of business in the sale and distribution of citrus fruit is substantial.

PAn. 4. In the course and conduct of its business over the past several years, respondent has sold and distributed, and is now selling and distributing, its citrus fruit in commerce, as "commerce ' is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, to buyers located in the several states of the United St.ates other than the State of Florida. Respondent transports or causes such citrus fruit, when sold, to be transported from its place of business or pac1dng plant in the State of Florida, or from other places within said state, to such buyers, or to the buyers' customers located in various other states of the United States. Thus there has been, at all times mentioned herein, a continuous course of trade in commerce in said citrus fruit across state lines between respondent and the respective buyers of such citrus fruit.

PAR. 5. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, for the past several years, but more pfLrticularly since tJ anuary 1 , 1959 respondent has been a.ncl is now making numerous and substantial sales of citrus fruit to some, but not an, of its brokers and direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resale and on a large number of these sales respondent pa.id, granted) or alIOI'i' ec1 : fld(l is now paying, granting, or allo\Ting to these brokers find (1direct buyers on their o\vn purchases, a commission, urokerage, or other compensation, or an allowance or discount in lien thereof, ill connection there.with.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondent in paying, gntTting, or allowing n. brokerage or commission, or an allowance or discount in lieu i-hereof, to buyers on purchases for their o\\n account, as DI CIOnGIO FRlJIT CORPORATION 96J 95n Decision hereinabove a.llegec1 and described, are in violation or subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (V. C. Title 15 Section 13).

Mr. Cecil G. illiles and Mr. Emest G. Eames supporting the complain!.

JIi'. Echcarrll. l(aplan. of New York, N. Y., for respondent. INITIAL DECISIO OF JOHN LE'\VIS, HEARING EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondent on October 17, 1960 , charging it ith haying yioJatcd Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act, as amended. After being served with said complaint, respondent entered into an agree. ment, dated December 20 , 1960, containing a consent order to cease and desist purporting to dispose of aji of this proceeding as to all parties, together with a, stipulation making more specific the acts and practices complained of and the intent of the order. Said agreement, which has been signed by respondent, by counsel for said respondent and by counsel supporting the complaint, and approved by the Director and Associate Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner for his consideration, in accordance with Section 3. 5 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. Ilespondent, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, has admitted a1J the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be t.taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts IW. been duly made in accordance with such a.llegations. Said a.greement furt.hcr provides that respondent waives an)' further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of la 'v a. nd an of thc rights it may have to challenge or contest the valirbty of the order to ce:1se and desist entered in accordance with such agTe( rnent. It has been agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordet1'ect as ifance with said agreement shall ha.ve the same force and entered after a full hearing and that the complaint may be used in const.ruling the terms of said order. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agree. ment, and that said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute all admission by respondent that it JUtS ,-iolated the hnv Its dlcgecl in the complaint.

This proceeding IUlving now come on for final consideration on the comp aint ana the aforesaid agreement containinp; consent order, together with the stipulation which has been made a part of 051-22.7-63- Decision 58 F.

said agreement, and it appearing that the order provided for in said agreement covers all of the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to all parties, said agreement is hereby accepted and is ordered filed upon this decision s becoming the decision of the Commission pursuant to Sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings, and the hearing examiner, accordingly, makes the following jurisdictional findings and order: 1. Respondent Di Giogio Fruit Corporation is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of business Jocated at 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco 4, California. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent hereinabove named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under the provisions of the Clayton Act.

ORDER It is ordered That the respondent Di Giorgio Fruit Corporation, a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in COIlnect.ion with the sale of citrus fnlit or fruit products in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from;

Paying, 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, anyt.hing of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection with any sale of citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his own account. DECISION OF THE cO DIISSIOX ..1\"' ORDER TO FILE REPOP.T o COMPLIANCE The Commission having no,y determined that the hearing examiner s initial decision, filed .January 31, 1961 is adequate and appropriate to dispose of this proceeding:

I t is ordered That said decision be, and it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is fvrther ordered That the respondent shan, within sixty (60) rbys aiter service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in rletail the manner and form in which it has complied with the order to cease and desist contained in the aforesaid initial decision.

, ,, PEOPLES PACKING COMPANY, INC. 963 963 Complaint