Fine Quiltixg Corp.

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

form in which she hm; complied with this order. Ix Tile JiATTER OF FINE QUILTIXG CORP. ET AL.

C(J RF;XT ORDER, ETC.. IX REGARD TO THE ALLEGED YIOL\TION OF T.fn FEDERAL TRADE COl\I:\IISSIO:K XXD THE WOOL PIwnDCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 0-111. Complaint, July 1S, 19CB-Decision, JuJU , 1962 Consent order requiring maJJufactnl'crs of qui1tell interlining materials in Bronx , to cease violating the 'Vool Products Lnbelil1g" Act by failng to show .

FINE QUILTL-"G CORP. ET AL.

Complaint on labels all such materials the true generic names of the constituent fibers and the percentage thereof, and failng in other respects to comply with labeling requirements; and to cease such unfair practices as stating on invoices and shipping memoranda that certain quiled interlining materials sold to their jobber and manufacturer customers were "Not less than 50% Hep. wool, 50% Unlmown fiuer when the fabrics contained substantially different fibers and in different quantities than so represented. l PL.-\XT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1939, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Fine Quilting Corp., a corporation, and Lazar Deutsch and Samuel "Ian del, individually and as offcers of said corporatjon, hereinafter referred to as respondent.s, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the \11001 roducts Labeling Act of 1839, anrl it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof 1\-ould be in the public inte.rest, hereby issues its complaint stating 11.s charges in that respect as follows:

PAR.4.GRAPH 1. Respondent Fine Quilting Corp.1 is a. corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Xew York. Respondents Lazar Deutsch and Samuel )fandel a.re the President and the Secretary-Treasurer of the corporate respondent, respectively. Said individual respondents cooperate in formulating, directing and eontrollillg the acts, policies and practices of the corporate respondent including the acts and practices hereinafter refcned to. All of the respondents have their ofiice and principal place of business located at 442 Eo 166th Street, Bronx, 1\ ew Yark. Hespondents are, manufacturers of quilt.ed interlining materials.

PAR. 2. Subse'lucnt to the eflectiye date of the '''001 Products Labeling Act of 19 D and more especially since ID53, respondents have introduced into eOInlleree manufactured for introduction into commerce, sold, transported, distrilmted, deli vered for shipment, and oll'el'ed for sale in commerce, wool products, as the tenns "commerce and "wool product are defined in the said J\cL PAR. 3. Certain of said wool products were misbranded by the respondents in that they '''ere not sta.mped, tagged, labe.led or otherwise identified as required under the provisions of Section 4(a) (2) of the '''001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and in the manner and form as prescrihed by the Rules and H.egulations promulgated under the Raid Act.

, Complaint 61 F.

Among such misbranded wool products, but not limited thereto were wool products, llmuely quilted interlining materials, with labels which failed:

1. To show the true generic names of the fibers present; 2. To show the percentage of such fibers.

u't. 4. Certain of said wool products we.re misbranded in violation of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 in that they were not labeled in accorda.nce with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that the required information descriptive of the fiber content was set out on labels in abbreviated Words or terms, in violation of Rule 9 of the Rules and Regu1nt.ions as aforesaid. PAR. 5. The acts and pradices of respondents as set fort,h above were, and are, in violation of the 11'001 Products Labeling Act of 1939 and of the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, and nOlv constitute, unfair and deceptive acts and practices and unfair methods of competition in commerce, within the intent and meaning of the l, ederal Trade Commission Act: PAR. 6. Hespondenis a.re now, and for some time last past, have been engaged in the oilering for sale, sale and distribution of products namely quilted inte.rlining materia.1s in commerce. The respondents said bu iness, in part, is that of manufacturing said quilted interlining materials from materials purchased from various suppliers in and about Metropolitan Kew York. The respondents sell these products to jobbers and to manufacturers ,,-ho in turn manufacture coats and other wool products and sell the same to customers throughout the nitecl State . The respondents maintain, and at all times mentioned herein, ha. e maintained, a substantial course of trade of said products in commerce, as ';commerce" is defined in the Federal Tra,dc Commis sion Act.

PAR. 7. R,esponc1ents in the (' 0111'3e and conduct of their business as a.foresaid, have made statements on ill voices and shipping memoranda to their customers misrepresenting the character and fiber content of certain of their said products.

Alnong such misrepresentations, but not. limited thereto, ,were statements representing certain quilted interlining materials to be "Not less than 50% R.ep. wool, :)0% Unknown fiber; whereas, in truth and in fact, the said fabrics contained llbstnntin1Jy difierent fibers and quantities of libel's than were represented. PAn. 8. The acts and pract.iees set out in pclrlLgl'aphs 6 and 7 have had, and now have, the tendency and capacity t.o mislead and deceive purchasers of said fabrics as to the true content thereof and to cause them to misbrand products ma.nufactured by them in which said ma.. terials are llsed.

FINE QUILTING CORP. ET AL.

Decision and Order 'R. 9. The acts and pmctices of the respondent set out in paragra.phs 6 and 7 were, anel are, an to the prejudice and injury of the public and or responde.nis: competitors and cons6tuted, and now constitute, unfair and deeept-jyc ads and practices, in commerce" within the intent Lnd meaning- of the :Federa.l Trade Commission Act. DEcrsIOX AKD ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue iib complaint charging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the 'Yoo! Products Labeling Act of 1939, and the respondems having been served with notice of said detennination and with a copy of the complaint the Commission intended,d to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and The respondents an(l coll1 el for the Commission having thereafter execut.ed an agreement containing a consent order, an adlllission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional fact.s set forth in the complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the Jaw has been violated as se,t forth in sneh complaint and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having considerBel the agreenJent, hereby accepts same., issues its c.complaint in t.he form contemplate.d by said agrcement makes the following jurisdict.iona,l findings, and enters the following oreler :

1. Respondent, Fine QuiJting Corp., is a corporation organized existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 442 East 166th Street, in the city of Bronx, State of New York.

Respondents Lazar Deutsch and Smnuel :Mandcl are orncers of said corpora,tion and their address is the same as that of said corporation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of tJ1C respondents, and the proceeding is in t.he public interest.

ORDER It 'i.s o'idered That respondeniB Fine Quilting Corp., a corporation and its officers, rmcl Lazar Deutsch and Samuel J\fandel, individually and as offcers of said corporation, a,nel respondents: representatives agent.s and employee, , directly or through any corporate or other dmrice, in C01110c1io11 wjth the introduction or mnnllfactllre 1'01' jntro- FEDERAL TRADE CO:'vL\1JS.SION DECISIONS Syllabus 61 F.

duction, into c011merce, or the oflering for sale, sale, transportation delivery for shipment, or distribution, in commerce, of quilted interlining materials 01' other wool products, as "commerce" and "wool product", are defined in the 'V 001 Products Labeling Act of 1030 do forthwith cease and desist from misbranding wool products by: 1. Failing to se.curely affx to or place on each such product, a stamp, t.ag, label or other means of idcntficnt,ion showing in a clear and conspicuous manner, c,nch elf'ment of information required to be discJosecl by Section .(a) (2) of the 'Yool I'roduets Labeling Act of 1039.

2. Setting forth the required infol'llfttioll descriptive of the fiber content on labels in abbreviated words or terms. It 1S fw,thel' O1'dered That respondents Fine Quilting Corp., a cor. poration, and its officers, and Lazar Deutsch and Samuel l\fandel individually and as offcers of said corporate.ion, and respondents' representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection \'dth the ofl' ering for sale, sale, or distribution of quilted interlining materials or other fiber products, in commerce, a.s "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act do forthwith cease and desist from misrepresenting the character or amount of constituent fibers contained in such products on invoices or shipping memoranda applicable thereto, or in any other manner. J t 'lS fU'Ithel' ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the mailer and form in which they have complied with this order. Ix THE l\IATTEH OF UJ\ITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY COXI:iE!\"r Ol:lJEH , ETC. IX HEG..\TIO TO THE ALLEGED \'IOLATJON OF TIl FEDERAL TR.:\DE CO:::IIISSION ACT Docket c-rnz. Comp/aint, Ju/U 1962--))ecision. Ju7y, 1962 Consent o1'1er requiring a manufacturer of 1l0tol' Yehide tires CO ceas( making deceptive pricing and sa,ings claims for its tires, batteries and aceessories by fmeh practices as publishing in newspaper ad"Vcrtising a higber and fictitious ")1fr s list price, folio\ved by a lo\ver "sale price " and representing falsely that the difference constiuted sa"Vings from usual prices, and furnishing its dealers and retail outlets wit.h advertising mats and price lists containing similar statements.

ITED STATES RLTBBER CO.

Complaint CO:UPLA.INT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that United States Rubber Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondent, has violated the provisions of said 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. Respondent United States Rubber Company is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew Jersey, with its principal offce and place of business located at 1230 Avenue of the Americas, in the city of New York, State of New York.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and for some time last past has been engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of, among other things, motor vehicle tires.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business, respondent sells said products, including motor vehicle tires, by means of independent dealers, company-owned stores and through other retail outlets located in the various states of the United States, and in the District of Columbia. Respondent causes said motor vehicle tires to be shipped from its fa.ctories, located in several states, to its various types of dealers and re\,,il outlets located in various other states of the United States, and in the District of Columbia. Respondent maintains, and at all times mentioned herein has maintained, a substantial course of trade in said products, in C0l11nerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. For the purpose of inducing the purchase of its motor vehicle tires, respondent has published, or caused to be published, in newspapers distributed through the United States maiJ and by other means, advertisements, among which the following is typical: First Time Sale 1960 Car Equipment Tire Itayal Safety Tire Complaint 61 F.

$8 to $11 OFF Mfr s List Prices Blackwall Tubeless Size M fr List Price Sale Price 50-14 $27. $19. 70-15 0014 30. 22. 10-15 8.50-14 33. 24. 60-15 00-14 37.40 27. 00-15 50-14 38. 28. 20-15 By use of the words "mfr s list price" in the above advertisement to designate the stated higher amounts, respondent represented, directly or by implication, that such higher amounts were the usual and customary prices at which such motor vehicle tires were sold at retail in the trade area or areas where the representations were made and that the difference between such stated higher amOlmts and the amounts designated as " sale prices" represented savings from the usual and customary retail prices ior such motor vehicle tires. In truth and in fact, such manufacturer s list prices arc fictitious and are in exces of the usual and customary retail prices for said motor vehicle tires in the trade area or areas where the representations were made and the difference between such stated higher amounts and the amolmts designated as " sale prices:' does not represent savings from the usual and cllstomary retail prices.

PAR. 5. Respondent has also engaged in the practice of furnishing to its various types of dealers and retail outlets advertising mats and price hsts containing prices designated as manufacturer s list prices thereby placing in the hands of its dealers and retail outlets the means and instrumentalities whereby they may represent, directly or by implicat.ion, that such manufacturer s list prices are the usual and customary retail prices for said merchandise. In truth and in fact, such manufacturer s list prices are iictitious and in excess of the usual and customary retail prices for said mercha,nd:ise in the trade area or areas where the representations arc made.

PAH. 6. In the conduct of its business, and at all times mentioned herein, respondent has been in substantial competition, in commerce with corporations, firms and individuals engaged in the sale of products of the same general kind and nature as that sold by respondent. \R. 7. The 118e by respondent of the aforesaid false, misleading and decept.ive representations and practices has had, and now has, the UNITED STATES RUBBER CO.

Decision and Order capacity and tendency to mislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken bebef that said representations were and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondcnt.' s products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief. PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondent's competitors and constituted, and now constitute, lU1fair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, in violation of Section 5 (a) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having heretofore determined to issue its complaint charging the respondent named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the respondent having been served with notice of said determination and with fL COP, ' of 1 he complaint the Commission intended to issue, together with a pro posed form of order; and The respondent and cOllnsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, nil admission by tho respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in t.he complaint to issue herein, a statement that the signing of s1tid agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint, and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission rules; and The Cormnission, 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, United States Rubber Company, is a corporation organized, existing and doing business lUlder and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kew Jersey, with its offce and principal place of business located at 1230 A vcnuc of the Americas, in the city of New York State of N ew York.

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

ORDER It is ordend Tlmt respondent United States Rubber Company, it corporation, and its offcers, and respondent's agents, representatives FEDERAL TRADE CO:.ISSIO'" DECISIONS Decision and. Order 61 E' and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the oll'ering for sale, sale and distribution of tires batteries and accessories, in commerce, as " commerce)' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by implication, that: " (a) Any amount is the usual and customary price of merdmndise in any trade area when it is in excess of the gcnerally prevailing price or prices at which said merchandise is sold in said trade area.

(b) Any saving from a trade area price or from the customary and usual price of the advertiser is afforded in thQ purchase of respondent's merchandise unless the price at which such merchandise is offered constitutes a reduction from the generally prevailing price or prices at which said merchandise is sold in the trading area in which the representation is made or the price at which :it, is customarily and usually sold by the ad vertiser, , 2. l\fisrepresenting in any manner the savings available to purhasers of respondent's merchandise or the amount by which the price of merchandise has been reduced from the price at which it is customarily sold by respondent or its competitors in the usual purse of business in the trade area or areas where the representations are made.

3. Using the words or terms "l\Ifr s list price " or any other words or terms of similar import, to refer to prices of merchandise unless such amounts are the prices at which the merchandise is usually and customarily sold in the trade area in which such representations are made.

4. Placing in the hands of distributors, retailers or others advertising material or other printed matter representing in any manner that any amount is th usual and customary retail price of merchandise when it is in excess of the price lt- which the. mBrchanclse is usually and customarily sold at retail in the trade' area or areas where the advertising material or printed matter is displayed 01' otherwise used.

It is further ordered That the respondent herein shall "within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writ.ing setting forth in data.iJ the manner and form "which it has complied with this order.

DIXIE-CENTRAL PROD"CCE CO. , L , ET AL.

Complaint IN THE l\L\.TTR DIXIE-CENTRAL PRODUCE CO., INC., ET AL.

ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (C) OF THE CLl\ YTON ACT Docket 8.17.5. Co-mpla-int, Ap1- 1962-Dedsion, July 14, 19G8 Order requiring a Columbia, S. , corporate food wholesaler and one of its directors to cease accepting ilegal brokerage on purchases of food products made through a brokerage business operated by said individual-such as commissions .oll substantial purchases of potatoes from several Illinois suppliers-in violatioll of Sec. 2 (c) of the Clayton Act. COl\PLAI The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the parties respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, have been and are now violating the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended (U. Titlo 15, Sec. 13), hereby issues its complaint, stating its cluLrges with respect thereto as follows:

PAR.:\.RAPH 1. Respondent Dixie-Central Produce Co. , Inc. , is a corporation organized. existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of South Carolina, with its offce and principal place of business located at State Farmers l\Iarket, Columbia C. This organization is a closed corporation, the entire stock of which is owned by relatives and members of the same family. Respondent Chris P. Leventis, an individual, served as President of respondent Dixie, Ccntral Produce Co., Inc., from lD51 until .J nnuary 1, 1D60. He is presently a member of the Board of Directors and one of the corporate respondents largest stockholders, owning approximately 16% of a11 capital stock. Said respondent Chris P. Leventis, while partially retired, participates in the acts, practices and policies adopted by the corporate respondent Dixie-Central Produce Company.

R.respondent Dixie-Central Produce Company, Inc., is engaged in business primarily as a wholes rle distributor, buying selling and distributing fresh fruit, produce, frozen foods and ea,nned goods, hereinafter sometimes referred to as food products. This respondent purchases its food products from a large number of suppliers located in many sections of the -United States and its ,"olmue of business in the purchase aJld sale of such products is subst.a,ntial. P..\.H. 2,. III addition to being- a member of the Board of Director" and a substantial m\"ne1' of respondent Dixie-Central Produce Company, Inc., respondent Chris P. Lcventis js also doing business as Dixie Brokerage Company, a sole proprietorship, under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Smith CarolilJa, with his offce and principal place of business located on the premises of respondent Dixie Central FEDERAL 'trade COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 61 F.

Produce Co., Inc., at State Farmers Market, Columbia, S. C. This respondent is now, n.nd for the past several yeJll'S has been, engaged in the brokerage business through the Dixie Brokerage Company, PUl'portP,dly representing various principals located throughout the United States in connection with the sale and distribution of food products. However, aJl the business done by Dixie Brokerage Com , IIle. , part-ia11yi)any consist of sales to Dixie-CentI'lll Produce Co. O\YllCcl and controlled by respondent Chris P. Leventis as indicated above. In representing these principals, respondent Chris P. Lc\-eutis, or the Dixie Brokerage CompnllY, is paid a brokerage fee or commission at varying rates depending on the product and amount sold. Tn disCllssing the brokerage activities of this company, both t.hc i11- (1ividnal respondent Chris P. Leventis and the Dixie Brokerage Companj"\Will sometimes hereinafter be referred to collectively as the DixIt: Brokerage Company.

An. 3. In the course and conduct of its ull. iness 101' the past several :years, respondent Dixip, Cent.ral Produce Co., Inc., has purchased and distributed, and is no\\ purchasing and distributing, food products in cornn1erce, as "co11m('xce " is defined in t.he aioresaid Clayton Act as amended, from suppliers 01' sellers located in several states of the United States other than the State of South Carolina, in which respondent is located, Respondent transports or causes such products when purchased, to be transported from t.he places of business 01' packing plants of its suppliers located in various other States of the Cnitecl States to respondent Iyho is located in the State, of South CaTolina or to respondents customers located in sald state or E'Jsevdlere. Thus, there has been at all times mentioned herein II continuolls course of trade In comnwrce' in the purchase of said food products across state lines by the respondent and its respectiye suppliers of such food products.

Respondent Chris P. Leventis, in t.he course and conduct of his brokerage business under' the name of Dixie Brokerage Company, has been and is now selling aucl distributing food products in C0ll11eI'Ce, as commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as arnended, for his suppl iers located in the variolls SUttes of the .United States other than the State of South Carolina. in which respondent is loc:ated. Said respondent lw.s iraJlSpOrled or call sed said food pl'oclllcts, when sold to he transported from his principals' places of business to the buyers phces of business located in other states, or to their customers located t.herein. Thus the.re has been at an t1111e3 mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in commerce in the sale of snjc1 lood products across state lines by the respondent and his principals, 01' customers thereof.

PAJ:. 4. In the course and conduct of their uusiness for the past several yea,rs, but more particularly since Janua.ry 1 1939, the responc1- DIXIE-CB:\'l' RAL "PODliCE CO, ) INC. , ET AL. Initial Dedsion ents have made name.rous and substantial purchases of food products from somo of their suppliers through the Dixie Brokerage Company, and on a la.rge number of these purchases Chris P. l-,oventis, through the Dixie Brokerage Company, has received and accepted and is now receiving and accepting from said suppliers 11 commission, brokerage 01' other compensation or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. For example., respondent Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc., makes, 01' has made, substantial purchases of potatoes from several suppliers located in the State of Illinois through the Dixie Brokerage Company, and on these purchases the Dixie Brokerage Company has received and accepted and is now receiving and accepting from sa-iel suppliers a C01ll1lission or brokerage. In view of the ownership and control described above, the said Dixie Brokerage Company on such purcJmses is acting for nncl in behalf of the buyer, or is subject to t.he direct or indirect. control of the buyer, the Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc., by reason of the stock ownership therein of respondent Chris P. Leyentis.

PAIL 5. The acts and pla.ctices of respondents in receiving and accepting a brokerage or c0111nis5ion, or atl allowa,nce or discount in lieu thereof, on their own purchases through the brokerage company ownccl and controlled by Chris P. Leventis, as above alleged and described are in violation of subsection (c) of Sedion 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (U.S. C. Title 15, Sec. 13).

llt'. JJcun7 J. ll1ezinc8 and 1111'. Donald A. 8urine for the Commission. Whaley NeCntchen by 3fT. Thomas E. McCutchen of Columbia , for respondent.s.

IxrrIAL DECISION BY ANDREW C. GoonUOl'E , HEARING EXA)HXER The complaint herein was issued and duly served upon respondents by registered mail on April 6, 1962. The complaint charged the ilegal receipt of brokerage payments from suppliers of food products to the respondents in violation of Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U. C. Sec. 13; 49 Stat. 1526). On l\hy 2, 1962, respondents by their counsel filed an answer 1.0 the complaint "* admitting an the material allegations of t.he complaint to be true * * *::. In addition, the respondents' nnswer stated that they "* : acquiesee in the iS llance of an order in the language and in the form of orde.r at-ta,ched to and serve,d with the complaint herein. On :Mav 8 1962 the res Jondenis bv their counsel filed an amended answer in which they repeated the achnissions quoted above and also wai ved t.he right to file proposed findings a.nd eoncJusions which right had been resc ved in their first ans,yer. This waiver was conditioned upon the Connnission issuing an oreier not at variance from t.he order attached to the complaint. COllnsel in support of the complaint have rl28-12'2--5-6 y, FEDERAL TRADE Cm1.VlISSION DECISIONS Initial Decision 61 F.

filed a motion in which they '''Hive the iiling of proposed findings and move that the record be close.d and nn initial decision be entered based the 1'1'0only upon the pleadings. Since both pm1ies have agreed to . priety of the order as contained in the Commission complaint and the examiner being of the opinion that the order provides an appropriate .disposition of this proceeding, this motion is granted. In their answers, respondents point ont that only about 10% of their purchases of food products through brokers '''as through the respond- 1'e-cnt Dixie Brokerage Company, and that the purchases through spollclent- ie Di'okel'ageCompany amOlmted to only 1% of their total purchases of food products from all sources. Respondents further point out that they were unaware that their t.transactions through the Dixie Brokerage. Compa.ny violat.ed any Jaw until this complaint issued.

Neither of these pleas can affect the outcome. of this proceeding. The maxim of de 'lninhnis non (;U-lat tex cannot be applied to this proceeding. In the iirst place, while respondents' receipt of illegal brokerage may han been connected with only a small percent.ge of their total business, there are no figures in the record as to respondents' total Plll'c.mses from an brokers or all sources 11pon ,,,which to pl'rrlicate a finding as to t.he actual dollar amounts in'iolvcd. Seeonc11y, Section 2 (c) of the Clayton Act, as amended, requires no clmrge. or finding of injury as a result of the receipt of the illegal brokerage. Biddle PU1' chasing Co. v. FTO 96 F. 2d 687, 690 (2d Cir. 1938), 2 S.&D. 447 ce"!. den. 305 FS. 6,)4 (1938); Olive,' Brothel'B , Inc. v. FTC 102 F. 2d log763 766 (4th Cir. 1939), 3 S.&D. 86; GTe(lt A P Tea. Co. FTO F. 2d 6G7, 675 (3d Cir. 1939), 3 S.&D. 146. Consequently, since any receipt of illegal brokerage violates Section 2 (c) without more, the only avenue for a hearing examine.r to pursne, after the Commission has decided to proceed in a particular case, is to find fL violation if it exists and enter an appropriate order to cease and desist. Since, in this case, respondents have admitted violat.ions, the examiner is left with no choice in the matter.

Hespondents' second plea. is that they were unaware of t.their violation and had no intent to violate the Act. This may well be true, but where a clear cut violation of the Act has been admitted, the fact that "it was not intentional is of no moment. To inject an clement of intent into Sect.ion 2(c) proceedings could only serve to unduly burden the Commission in a fashion not intended b;v either the Act itself or by Congress ill performing its statutory duty of enforcing the Act. The CommissJon's order 10 cease rmc1 desist. in this matter 1S prospective in nature and is not pnniLilTe of past yio1ations of the Act pvcn though based on such violat.ions. FTO Rubei' oid Co. 3:13 U. S, 470, 473 (1952), 5 S.&D. :188.

DIXIE-CEXTRAL PRODUCE CO.. IKC. , ET AL.

,67 . Initial Decision FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Dixie-Centra.l Produce Co. , Inc., is a corporation -organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of South Carolina, ,,.ith its office aud principal place of business located at State Farmers Market, Columhia, S.C. This organization is a closed corporation, the entire stock of ",,,which is owned by relatives a.nd members of the same family. Responde,Ilt Chris P. Leventis, an individual, served as President of respondent Dixie-Central Produce Co. , Inc.. from ID51 until .January 1, ID60. He is presently a member of the Board of Directors and one of tile corporate respondent's largest stockholders, owning approximately 16% of a11 capital stock. Said respondent Chris P. Leventis, while partially retired, participates in the acts, practices and policies adopted by the corporate respondent Dixie-Ccntral Produce -Company.

Respondent Dixie-Central Produce Company, Inc., is engaged in business primarily as a wholesale distributor, buying, selling and distributing fresh fruit, produce, frozen foods and canned goods, hereinafter sometimes referred to as food products. This respondent purchases its food products from a la.rge numher of suppliers' located in many sections of the United States and its volume of business in the purchase and sale of such products is substantial. 2. In addition to being a me-moor of the Board of Directors and a :substantial Q"yner of respondent Dixic-Central Produce Company, Inc. , respondent Chris P. Leventis is also doing business as Dixie Rrokernge Company, a. sole propriet.orship, under and by virtue of the laws of the Stflte of South Carolina, with his offce and principal place of business 10cnJecl on the premises of respondent Dixie-Central Produce Co. , Inc. , at State Farmers hrket, Columbia, S. C. This respondent is now, and for the past several years has been, engaged in the brokerage business through the Dixie Brokerage Company, purportec11y representing various principals located throughout the United States in connection with the sale and distribution of food products. However', all the business' done by Dixie Brokerage Com- , part.ial1ypany consists of sales to Dixie- Central Produce Co., Inc. Qwned ftnd controlled by respondent Chris P. Leventis as indicated above. In representing these principals, respondent Chris P. Levcntis or the Dixie Brokerage Company, is pric1 a brokerage fee or .commission at yarying tntes depe, nding on the product and amount sold. In discussing the, brokerage. activities of this ('company both the individual respondent Chris P. Leventis and the Dixie Brokerage Company will sometimes hereinafter be referred to collectively s the Dixie Brokerage Company.

0. In the course and conduct of its busilless for the past several years, respondent Dixie-Cent.ral Produce Co., Inc., h s purchased and FEDERAL TRADE CO:\L\ISSION DECISIONS Initial Decision 61 E' 'l' distributed, and is now purchasing and distribubng, 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 South Carolina, in which respondent is located. Respondent transports or causes such 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 South Carolina 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 conunercc in the purchase of sa.id food products across state lines by the respondent and its respective suppliers of such food products.

Respondent Chris P. Leventis, in the course and conduct of his brokerage business under the name of Dixie Brokerage Company! has been and is now seIJing and distributing food products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, for his suppliers located in the various states of the United States other than the State of South Carolina in which respondent located. Said respondent has tmnsported or caused said 1'ood prod- 11Cts, when sold, to be tra.nsported from his principals' places of business to the buyers' places of business located in other states, or to theie customers located therein. Thus, there has been at all t.times mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in commerce in the sale of said food products across state lines by the respondent and his principals or customers thereof.

4. In the course and conduct of their business :for the past several.l years, but 1110re particularly since J anua,ry 1 , 1959, the respondents have made numerous and substantial purchases of food products from some of the,ir suppliers through the Dixie Brokerage Company, and on a large number of these purchases Chris P. Leventis, through the Dixie Brokerage Company, 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 cOJmection therewith. For example, respondent Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc., ma,kes, or has made, substa.ntifll purchases of potatoes from several suppliers located in the State of Illinois through the Dixie Brokerage Company, and on these purchases the Dixie Brokerage Conlpany hfls received and accepted and is now receiving and accepting from sa.id suppliers a commission 01' brokerage. In view of tho ownership and control describe-d above, the said Dixie Brokerage Company on such purchases is acting :for and in behalf of the buyer or is subject to the direct or indirect cont.rol of the buyer.r, the Dixie- Central Produce Co., Inc., by reason of the stock ownership therein 01' respondent Chris P. Leventis.

j ,.

DIXIE-CE TRAL PRODUCE CO. , INC. , ET' AL.

Initial Decision CONCLUSION The acts and practices of respondents in receiving and accepting a brokerage or commission, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof on their own purchases through the brokerage company owned and controlled by Chris P. Leventis, as above alleged and described, are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Cla.yton Act, as amended (U. C. Title 15 , Sec. 13) .

ORDER It is o1'dered That respondent Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc. , a ,corporation, and Chris P. Leventis, individually and as a Director and stockholder of Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc., and respondents' agents, representatives and employees, directly or through any corporate, partnership, sole proprietorship or otller device in connection whh the purchase of 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 allo-wance 01' discount in .leu thereof, upon or in connection with any purchase of food products for respondents own account, or on purchases made through the Dixie Brokerage Company, or any other brokerage organizat.ion, where and so long as, a,ny relationship exists between the brokerage organization and the respondents named herein, either through ownership, control or ma.nagement.

It is thel' oTdel'ed Thrt respondent Chris P. Leventis, individlUllly and doing business as Dixie Brokerage Company, or under any othet name, and his agents, representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate.e, pa.rtnership, sole propriet.orship or other device, in connection with the purchase or sale of food products in commerce, as "commerce ' is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act do forthwith cease and desist front:

Receiving or accepting, directly or indirectly, from any seller anything of value as it commission, brokerflge, or other compensation, 01' any allmYflnCe or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection \\ilh any purchase of food products for h is own ac- Gaunt, or for the account of the Dixie Brokerage Company, or for the account of the Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc" so Jong as any relationship exists between the brokerage organization and the buyer organization, eit.her through ownership, control or management, or where respondent. Chris P. Leven6s, or the Dixie Brokerage Company, is the agent, representative or other inter- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIOK DECISIONS Complaint 61 F.

mediar.) acting for 01' in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of a,n)' buyer, including the Dixie-Central Produce Co., Inc.

DECISION OF THE COl\DfISSIOK .\XD ORDER TO FILE REPOR1' OF COllIPLL\NCE Pursuant to Section 4.19 of the Comllissioll S Rules of Practice effective J' une. 1 1062 the initial deejsion of the hearing examiner shall, Oil the Hth day of July 1962, become the decision of the Commission; and accordingly:

It is o1'dei' That respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with tl1c Commission 11 report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which. they have complied with the order to cease and desist.