Bridgeport Brass Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF BRIDGEPORT BHASS COMPANY CONSE1\ry ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO 'lie ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2( d) OF TH CLAYTON ACT Docket 7842. Complaint, MU1' 1960-Decision, Mar. 7, 1962 Consent ordet requiring the legal successor through merger of a manufacturer of brass, copper, and aluminum products, including tubular plumbing brass goods and copper water tubing, with annual sales in excess of $135 000 000, to cease discriminating among competing purchasers of its plumbing products in violation of Sec. 2(d) of the Clayton Act by paying sums amounting to $4 950 to the American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp. for promoting products on television programs in the four trading areas of Dallas, Tex. ; St. Louis, :\10. ; New Orleans, La. ; and Pittsburgh, Pa. without making comparable payments available to competitors of .American Radiator.

IPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, has violated and is now violating the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (D. C. Title 15 , Sec. 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges \with respect thereto as follows: , is a PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Bridgeport Brass Company, Inc. orporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut, with its principal offce and COll1.place of business located at 30 Grand Street, Bridgeport, PAR. g. R.respondent is now and has been engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of brass, copper and aluminlln products including tubular plumbing brass goods and copper water tubing. Respondent sells its products of like grade and quality to a large number of customers located throughout the United States for use or resale therein. Respondent's sales of its products are substantial exceeding $135 000 000 annually.

J3RIDGEPORT BRASS CO. 481 480 Initial Decision PAR. 3. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid, has caused and now causes its said products to be shipped and transported from the state or states of location of its various manufacturing plants, warehouses and places of business, to purchasers thereof located in states other than the state or states wherein said shipment or transportation originated. There has been at all times mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in COIn1erce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act as amended. PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce, since January 1, 1957, respondent has paid or contmcted for the payment of something of value to or for the benefit of certain of its customers as compensation or in consideration for services or facilities furnished by or through such custoIDers in connection with their offering for sale or sale of products sold to them by respondent, and such payments have not been offered or otherwise made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the sale and distribution of respondent' s products.

PAR. 5. For example, between May, 1957, and April, 1959, respondent contracted to pay, and periodically did pay, sums ml10unting to 950.00 to the American R.adiaLoI' and St.andard Sanitary Corporation for services and facilities furnished it by American Hadiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation in promoting the sale of respondents' products throug.h television programs sponsored by American JIac1iator and Standard Sanitary Corporation in the trading areas of DaJ1as, Tex. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; New Orleans, La. ; and Pittsburgh Pa. Such payments were not offered or othenvise made lvai.table on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing with American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation in the sale and distribution of products of like grade and quality purchased from respondent.

PAIL 6. The acts and practices of respondent, as alleged herein are in violation of subsection (d) of Section 2. of the Cla.yton Act, as amended by the Eobjnson Patman Act.

Mr. John Pe7'Y supporting the complaint. Donovan LeiwJ'e Newton dO Irv.ine by lift. Walter R. 111 (l7lsfield for respondent.

IXlTIAL DECISION BY 1V ALTIH K. BENKETT, ITK\RING EXAMINER The complaint in this matter was issued March 23, 1960. It charged respondent Bridgeport Brass Company ' (to which name the appendage Inc. was errolleously added) with paying sums aggregating $4 950 1 Erroneously described as Bridgeport Brass Company, Inc., in the complaint. 482 FEDERA TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Initial Decision 60 F.

to American Hadiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation for services and facilities in furnishing television programs in four designated trading areas. Such payments allegedly \were not made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers in violation of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act. On January 17, 1962, counsel presented to the undersigned an agreement dated January 5 , 1960, executed by responclcnt:s successor, its counsel, and counsel supporting the complaint. Said agreement was duly approved by the Director of the Bureau of Hcstraint of Trade the Assistant Director and the Chief of the Division of Discriminatory Practices.

On August 25 , 1961, the parties filed a notice with the Secretary that they wished to avail themselves of the privilege of disposing of t.his matter by the execution of an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist. Under the R.ules of Practice, prior pro ceedings were had which caused the case to remalIl with the hearing BXaITllner.

The hearing examiner finds that said agreement includes all of the provisions required by Section 3.25 (b) of the Rules of the Commission that is:

A. An admission by respondent of all jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint.

B. Provisions that:

1. The complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; . Tho order shall have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing;

3. The 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;

4. The entire record on which any cease and desist order may be based shall consist solely of the comphlint and the agreement; 5. The order may be altered, modiI-ed, or set aside in the manner provided by statute for other orders.

C. IVaivers of:

1. The requirement that the decision must contain a statement or findings of fact and conclusions of Jaw;

2. Further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission;

3. Any right to challenge or contest the validity of the order entered in accordance \with the agreement.

In addition the agreement contains the following provisions: BRIDGEPORT BRASS CO. 483 Initial Decision A. A statement that the signing of said 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. B. K ational DistiUers & Chemical Corporation is the legal successor to Bridgeport Brass Company, and a8 such it herewith and hereby assumes aU of the obligations and duties of Bridgeport Brass Company, including compliance 1,with the order to cease and desist contained herein.

C. Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Hobinson-Patman Act (D. S. Title 15, Sec. 13), the Federal Trade Commission, on .YIarch 23, 1960 issued its complaint in this proceeding against Bridgeport Brass Company, and a true copy of said complaint was duly served on the aforenamed Bridgeport Brass Company. Respondent K ational Distillers & Chemical Corporation, as legal successor of Bridgeport Brass Company, herewith and hereby Iyaives amendment of the complaint and service of process and agrees that the service of a true copy of the complaint against Bridgeport Brass Company shall have the same legal force and effect as though it were served upon respondent National Distillers & Chemical Corporation, and that respondent N ational Distillers 8: Chemical Corporation, as such legal successor', shall be and is leg-ally bound by the service of a true copy of the complaint upon Bridgeport Brass Company, as though a copy of said complaint was served upon atiollfll Distillers & Chemical Corporation. D. Counsel supporting the complaint does not have available evidence in support of the complaint fls to any of respondenes product lines other than plumbing goods, \yater tubing used for plumbing, and related plumbing products, nor is there olvaibblc any evidence indicat ing that practices similar to those alJegec1 to have been used in connection with the sale of plumbing goods, ,yater tubing used for plumbing, and related plumbing products, e,exist as to any other of respondent's product lines. The complaint generally alleges that respondent is ng-aged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of brass, copper and aluminum products, and is speciflCalJy directed at t.ubula.r plumbing brass goods a,nel copper water tubjng, The following order prohibits the practices challenged in the complaint in connection with tllc offering for sale, sa.Je or distribution of plumbing goods, water tubing used plumbing, and re.Jated plumbing products. This constitutes corn plete coverage of the practices "which formed the basis for issuance of the complaint. Although Bridgeport Brass Company wa,s a multiple-product line company, and tJJnt fact is recognized in paragraph 2 of the complaint, 1Vherein a complete listing was made of Bridgeport 719-603-64- 1:2 484 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO:\S Initial Decision GO F. Brass Company s products by type of metal used, tho cause of action is actually centered only on the single product line of plumbing goods water tubing used for plumbing, and related plumbing products, and the following order to cease and desist covers this product line completely.

I-Iaving considered said agreement, including the proposed order and being of the opinion that it provides an appropriate basis for settlement and disposition of this proceeding; the hearing examiner hereby accepts the agreement but orders that it shall not become a part of the offcial record lmless and until it bccomes a part of the decision of the Commission.

The following jurisdictional findings are made and the following order issued:

1. Bridgeport Brass Company (erroneously named in the complaint as Bridgeport Brass Company, Inc. ) \Vas a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Conneeticut, with its offce and principal place of business located at 30 Grand Street, Bridgeport, COlil. 2. K ational Distillers & Chemical Corporation is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the la ws of the State of Virginia, with its offce and principal place of business located at 99 Park Avenue, New Yark 3. On June 30, 1961, Bridgcport Brass Company was merged into and with National Distillers & Chemical Corporation. From that time on, Bridgeport Brass Company ceased to exist as all independent corporation doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut, and became instead a division of National Distillers & Chemical Corporation (the surviving corporation from the merger), known as Bridgeport Brass Company, Division of J\ational Distillers & Chemical Corporation.

4. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent. ORDER 1 t is ordered That respondent, National Distilers & Chemical Corporation, a corporation (the legal successor to Bridgeport Brass Company), and its offcers, employees, agents and representatives, direct.y or through any corporate or other device, in or in connection with the oilering for sale, sale or distribution of plumbing goods, water tubing used for plumbing, and related plumbing products in commerce, as commerce" is defined ill the Cla.yton Act, as amended, do forlhwith cease and desist from:

BRIDGEPORT BRASS CO. 485 480 Decision and Order Paying or contracting for the payment of anything of value to, or for the benefit of, any customers of respondent as compensation or in consideration for any services or facilities furnished by 01' through such customers in connection with the handling, offering for sale, sale or distribution of said products, unless such payment or consideration IS affrmatively made available on proportionally equal terms to all other customers competing in the distribution of such products. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION .AND ORDER TO FILJ: REPORT OF :IPLI.XCE The Conll11ission having considered the hearing examiner s initial decision, filed January 26, 1962, accepting an agreement containing a consent order theretofore executed by respondent and by counsel supporting the complaint; and It appearing that the purported summarization of the charges in the complaint set forth in the first paragraph of the initial deeision is in error; and that through inadvertence the date " January5, 1900" is given in the initial decision as the date of the agreement; and The Commission being of the opinion that these errors should be corrected:

It is ordered That the initial decision be, and it hereby is, amended by striking the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of said decision and substituting therefor the following: It charged that respondent Bridgeport Brass Company (to which namo the appendage 'Inc. as erroneously added) in the course and conduct of its business in commerce has violated subsection (d) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended.

It is further ordered That the initial decision be, and it hereby is amended by striking the date January, 1960" as it appears in the second line of the second paragraph of said decision and substituting therefor the date " January 5 , 1962.

It is further ordered That the inital decision, as so amended, shall on the 7th day of :Ylarch 1962, become the decision of the Commission. I t is That the respondent, K ational Distilers & further ordered Chemical Corporation, a corporation, successor to respondent Bridgeport Brass Company, shall, within sixty (60) days after serviee 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.

, 486 FEDERAL TRADE CO:VL\IISSIO:\T DECIS.rO: Complaint 60 F.

IN THE J\U"IER OF KEW YORK FASHION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATlQN OF THE FED- :EHAL TRDE CO:lDfISSION AND THE Ifit PROD"CCTS LABELING ACTS Doclcet C-91. Complaint, Mar. 19G2-Decision, Mar. 1962 Consent order requiring 'Waterloo, Iowa, furriers to cease violating the Fur Products Labeling Act by failng to show on invoices and in newspaper advertising the true names of animals producing certain furs, and when fur products contained artificially colored or cheap or waste fur; failng to show the country of origin of imported furs on invoices; advertising prices of fur products falsely as reduced from regular prices when the latter were fictitious, and as "sale priced a fraction above wholesale cost" failng to keep adequate records as a basis for price and value claims; and failng in other respects to comply with invoicing and. advertising requirements.

COI'PIJ AINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that N ow York Fashion, a corporation, and Edmond Dantes individually and as an offcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, leave violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Lal:m1ing Act, and It appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. New York Fashion is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Iowa with its office and principal place of business located at 220 East Fourth Street, \Vaterloo, Iowa. Edmond Dantes is vice president of the said corporate respondent and controls, formulates and directs the acts, practices and policies of the said corporate respondent. Paint. 2. Subsequent to the effective date of thc Fur Products Labeling Act on August 9 1952, respondents have been and are nmv engaged in the introduction into commerce and in the sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution, in commerce, of fur products; and have sold, ndvertisecl offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products, which have been made in whole or in part or fur which had been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms "commerce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling ll.Ct. NEW YORK FASHION ET AL. 487 486 Complaint PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondents in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5(b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were invoices pertaining to such fur products which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in the fur product. 2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

3. To show that the fur contained in the fur products was composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies or waste fur, when such was the fact.

4. To show the country of origin of the imported furs used in the fur products.

PAR. 4. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations pro mulgatcd thereunder in that required item numbers were not set forth on invoices, in violation of Hule 40 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that respondents caused the disseminat.ion ill commerce, as ':commerce " is clefined in said Act, of certahl newspaper advertisements, concerning said products, which were not in accordance "\with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereillder; and which advertisements were intended to aid, promote and assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of said fur products.

PAR. 6. Among and included in the advertisements as aforesaid but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondents, which appeared in issues of the ,Vatcrloo DaiJy Courier, a newspaper published in the cit), of ,Yaterloo State of IO\Ta, ancl having a wide circulation in said St.ate and various other SLates of the L--united States. By means of saiel advertisements and others of similar import and meaning, not specifically referred to herein, respondents falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in that said advertisements: (a) Failed to disclose the name or na,mes of the animal or animals that produced the fur contained in the fur product as set forth in the 488 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOXS Complaint 60 P.

Fur Products Name Guide, in violation of Section 5 (a) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

(b) Failed to disclose that fur products contained or were composed of bleached, dyed or otherwise artificially colored fur, when such was the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (3) other Fur Products Labeling Act.

(c) Contained information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form, in violation of Hule 4 of said Rules and Regulations.

(d) Failed to disclose that fur products were composed in whole or in substantial part of flanks when such was the fact, in violation of Rule 20 of said Rules and Hegulations.

(e) Failed to sct forth information required under Section 5(a) of the Fur products Labeling Act and the Rules and Hegulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38 (a) of said Rules and Regulations.

(f) Represented prices of fur products as having been reduced from regular or usual prices where the so-called regular or usual prices were in fact fictitious in that they were not the prices at which said merchandise was usually sold by respondents in the recent rcgulax course of business, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Hule 44 (a) of said Rules and Regulations. (g) Represented prices of fur products to be "every item-sale priced a fraction above "Wholesale cost" when such ,vas not the fact, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. PAR. 7. Respondents in advertising fur products for sale as aforesaid, made claims and representations respecting prices and values of fur products. Said representations were of the types covered by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 of the Rules and Regulations promulgllted under the Fur Products Labeling Act. Hespondents in making such claims and representations failed to maintain full and adequate records disclosing the facts upon which such claims and representations were based, in violation of Rule 44(0) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated therelmder and constitute lmfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce under the Federal Trade Commission Act. , , NEW YORK FASHIOK ET AL. 489 486 Order DECISION .AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said determination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a proposed fornl of order; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter exccuted an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint, a statement that the signing of said agrcement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in the complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considered the agreement, hereby accepts same, issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent New York Fashion is a corporation orga,nized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Iowa, with its offce and principal place of business located at 220 East Fourth Street Waterloo, Iowa.

Respondent Edmond Dantes is an oficer of said corporate respondent, and his offce and principal place of business is the same as that of said corporate respondent.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondents Kew York Fashion, a corporation and its officers, and Edmond Da,notes, indivic1ua.lly and as an offcer of sa.id corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other dmrice, in connection with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising or offering for sale in commerce, or the transportation or distribution in commerce, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation, or dist.ribution, of any :fur product ,which is made in whole or in part of fur which11 has been shipped and received in commerce, as "C0l111l1Crce fur" and "fur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

490 FE.DERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 60 l!' 1. Falsely or deceptively invoicing fur products by: A. Failing to furnish invoices to purchasers of fur products showing in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

B. Failing to set forth the item number or mark assigned to a fur product.

2. Falsely or deceptively advertising fur products through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of fur products, and which: A. Fails to disclose:

(1) The name or names of the animal or animals producing the fur or furs contained in the fur product, as set forth in the Fur Products Name Guide, and as prescribed under the Rules and R.egulatjons.

(2) That the fur product contains or is composed of bleached dyed or othenyise art.ificlftlly colored inr, when such is the fact. B. Sets forth information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and R,egulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form.

C. Fails to disclose that fur products are composed in whole or in snbsta,ntial part of flanks, when such is the fact. D. Fails to set forth the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the H.ules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

E. R,e.present.s, direct ly or by implication, that the regular or usual price of any fur product is any amout \Which is in excess of the price at which respondents halo usual.lly and customarily sold such products in the recent regular course of business.

F. Hepresents directly or by in1plication that prices of fur product.s are "sale prieed a fraction above ,yholesnJe cost" or \Yards of similar import, when sllch is not the fact.

by 2ub- 3. JIaking chims and representations of the types covered eections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 44 oithe Rnles and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act unless there are mainta.ined by respondents full and adequate records disclosing th3 facts upon which such claims anclreprcsentl1tions tre based. I t is further ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) clnTs after service upon them of this order, lile with the Conmlissiol1 t report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have compiled with this order. LEC ELECTRIC CO. , L'C. , ET AL" 491 Complaint