Atd Catalogs, Inc.
Volume 71 · 71 F.T.C. 354
Cited as a basis for the FTC Notice of Penalty Offenses on Auto Rentals (1978).
Cite this decision
Atd Catalogs, Inc., 71 F.T.C. 354 (1967). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v071-0040
Report an error in this record (decision id v071-0040)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Notice of Penalty Offense references are listed separately above in the existing Phase 1 links.
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE :VIATTER OF ATD CATALOGS, INC., ET AL.
ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket 8100. Complaint, Aug. Ifj(;O- Decision, Mat. 27, 1967 Order reopening proceeding, setting aside consent order and dismissing complaint against The S & 1\1 Company, a corespondent in a consent order entered into with A TD Catalogs, 1m., et al. on April 3 , 1964 , 65 71.
ATD CATALOGS, INC. , ET AL. 355 354 Order ORDER REOPENING PROCEEDING, SETTING ASIDE CONSENT ORDER AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT This matter is before the Commission upon the petition of respondent The S & :v Company, a corporation, filed October 24 1966 , to reopen the proceeding pursuant to 28 (b) (2) of the Commission s Rules of Practice and as to it, to set aside the consent order issued April 3 , 1964 (65 F. C. 71j, and to dismiss the complaint. The Director of the Bureau of Restraint of Trade has filed an answer thereto, stating that in view of the Commission s action herein in setting aside the consent order and dismissing the complaint as to respondents James V. Cariddi and Southland Distributors, Inc. , he did not oppose the petition. As grounds for its request, respondent The S & 1V Company, a wholesaler, asserts that the Commission dismissed the complaint herein against litigating \vholesalers where it was shown that they had no stock interest in ATD and their offcers or principals did not concurrcntly hold positions in the publishing corporation and where the record did not support a finding that these wholesalers were acquainted with the internal administration of A or with the details of the latter s negotiations leading up to the payments under consideration. Such respondent further points out that the consent order was set aside and the complaint dismissed upon a similar showing as to respondents Southland Distributors, Inc., and James V. Cariddi.
In an affdavit accompaliying the motion respondent asserts that at no time did it OW1-: any stock in A TD or receive any dividends that no representative of it was ever a director, oficer or employee of A TD, and that neither it nor any of its representatives had any specific knowledge of the internal administration of A TD or the details of the latter s neg-otiations leading up to the payments under consideration. The Director, Bureau of Restraint of Trade does not dispute the assertions in the affdavit. The Commission, in consideration of the petition filed by The S & ;vI Company and the answer thereto by the Director of the Bureau of Restraint of Trade, has determined that in the public interest this matter should be reopened as to The S & M Company, the consent order set aside and the complaint dismissed as to such corporation. Accordingly, It is ordered That this matter be, and it hereby is, reopened as to The S & 1V Company.
It is further ordered That the order of the Commission issued April 3, 1964, adopting the initial decision of the hearing exam- Complaint 71 F.
iner of June 13, 1962 (65 F. C. 71 , 77J, containing an order to cease and desist, be, and it hereby is, set aside as to respondent The S & M Company and that the complaint as to this respondent , and it hereby is, dismissed.