Jens Risom Design, Inc.

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

IN THE ~LATTER OF JENS RISOM DESIGN, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 2 (a) OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 8740. Oomplain, , July 21, 1967-DeaiMon, Jan. 30, 1968 Consent order requiring a New York City furniture manufacturer, to cease discriminating in price between customers who resell its furniture, in violation of Section 2 (a) of the Clayton Act.

Co :J\-IPL..I\INT The Federal Trade Commision, having reason to believe that Jens Risom Design, Inc., and Jens Risom Design (California) Inc., the parties respondent named in the ca.ption hereof and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, have violated and are now violating the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act (U. , Title 15, Section 13) as anlended by the Robinson-Patman Act, approved J nne 19, 1936, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Jens Risom Design, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business lmder and by virtue. of the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of busi- . ness located at 444 ~1ac1ison Avenue, New York, N. PAR. 2. Respondent J ens Risom Design (California) Inc., is a corporation orgfil1ized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place "'Compliance of this order modified by order of March 20 , 1968 , p. 123 herein. Order setting date of compliance dated December 8, 1969. JENS RISOM DESIGN, INC. , ET AL. 121 120 Complaint of business located at 444 :Madison Avenue, Ne\v York, N.Y. Respondent .J ens H,iSOlll Design (California) Inc., is wholly owned and controlled by J'ens Risom Design, Inc.

P..m. 3. Respondents are now, and for nlany years last past have been, engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of furniture and furniture products. These products are sold to a large number of customers located throughout the United States and in foreign lands. Sales of these products are substantial, amounting to about $4 million per annmn.

PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents ha Y';: engngt,cl and are nOlY engaged in COl11111erce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act. Respondents employ interstate means of communication ,,'ith their custOlners in the consummation of sales and in the settling of accounts. Respondents ship, or cause to be shipped, their products frOlTI the States in which said products are manufactured to their customers, or to purchasers from their customers~ located in other States of the United States and the District of Columbia. Thus, there is and has been, at all times mentioned herein a. continuous course of trade in commerce in said products across State lines between respondents and their customers. PA;R. 5. In the course and conduct of their business in commerce respondents have been and now are discriminating in price, directly or indirectly, between different purchasers of their furniture and furniture products of like grade and quality by selling said products at higher pric~es to some purchasers than they sell said products to other purchasers, many of whom have been and now are in competition with the purchasers paying the higher prices.

\R. 6. Included among, but not limited to, the aforesaid discriminations in price as above alleged, are the following: For several years last past respondents have priced their line of prodnets in terms of list prices. One class of respondents' customers purchases at said list price.s less a discount of 40 percent while other classes of custOll1ers purchase at list prices less discounts ranging up to ;'50 + 10 percent. Various members of each class of customers compete with each .other and with various members of each of the other classes. PAR. 7. The effect of respondents' discrim\linations in price as alleged herein has been or may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to ,create alllonopoly in the line of commerce in which respondents' customers are engaged, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with purchasers from respondents who receive the benefit of such discriminations.

418-345-72- 122 FEDERAL TRADE COlVThlISSION DECISIONS Decision and Order 7'.3 F. PAR. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices constitute violations of the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Ad (U. Title 15, Section 13) as amended by' the Robinson-Patulan Ad approved June 19, 1936.

DECISION AND ORDER The Commission having issued its complaint in this proceeding on July 28, 1967, charging the respondents named in the caption hereof Yiith violation of Section:2 (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended and said respondents having been served ,,-ith a copy of that complaint: and The respondents having thereafter filed a request pursuant to ~ 2. 34( c1) of the, Rules to hate' the matter "\yithdrawn from adjudication a.nd the Commission having granted that request by its order related October 23, 1967; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having executed an agreement containing an admission by respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the said complaint which had been issued a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in said complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules; and The Commission having considered the a~reement and 11a vinf!.' acce,pted same, and the agreement containing consent order having thereupon been placed on the public record for a period of 30 clays. 1l0"\Y in further conformity ,,-ith the procedure prescribed in S 2. 34 (b") of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint in the form contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings and enters the following order:

1. Respondent J ens Risom Design, Inc., is a corporation organized existing' and doing business under and hv virtue of the laws of the State of N e; Yor!\:, with its princi pal office~ and place of business located at 444l\1adison Avenue, in the city of New York, State of Ke\\ York.. Respondent .J ens RisOlll Design (California. ) Inc.., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of th€ In "\YS of the State of Delaware, with its principal office and place of business located at 444 ~1ac1ison Avenue, in the city of New York, State of New York. Respondent J ens Risom Design (California) Inc., is ,,-holly owned and controlled by respondent J ens Risom Design, Inc. 2. The Fede-ral Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents. JENS RISOM DESIGN, INC. , ET AL. 123 120 Order ORDER It is onle1'ed That respondents J ens Risom. Design, Inc. , a corporation, and t ens Riscom Design (California) Inc., a corporation and their officers, representatives, agents, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in, or in connection with, the offeriilg for sale, sale, or distribution of furniture and furniture products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Discriminating, directly or indirectly, in the price of such products of like grade and quality by selling to any purchaser at net prices higher than the net prices charged any other purchaser who in fact competes in the resale of such products with the purchaser paying the higher price.

1 t is f~l1'thel' 011de11 That the respondents here.in 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 manner and form in which they have cOlllplied with this order. ORDER RULING ON RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REOPENING PROCEEDING AND 1\10DIFYING THE COl\DIISSION S DECI- SION. l\IARCH 20, 1968 This m~tter having come on to be heard upon the petition for reconsideration filed by the respondents on February 23, 1968, requesting, among other things, that the Commission reconsider and withdraw the decision and order which issued on t anuary 30, 1968, and issue a revised decision expressly providing that the order herein shall become final in the manner provided in the agreement containing consent order previously accepted by the Commission as the basis for disposition of this proceeding, and which petition further states that the request for reeonsideration is not opposed by complaint counsel; and The Commission being duly cognizant now as it was at the time of its ac.ceptance of such agreement containing consent order that Paragraph 7 thereof recites, among other things, that the order to cease and desist to be entered shall not become final within the meaning of the Clayton Act, as amended, until the date of final disposition of the proceedings the lIfatter of l(no71 Associates, I'ric. Docket No. 8549, then pending on petition for revjew before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (8 S.&D. 772J ; and .. .

iW .J.. FEDEr: AL TRADE COADlIS,SION DECISIONS Syllabus i3 F.

The Commission being of the vle"\y that it is appropriate that the decision herein should contain express reference to the' afo1'2;;;aicl agreement provision to the end that the Record in that respect be more clf?army evident in the decision and the Commission having additionally determined that the order should not contain the customarv direction for submission of a report of compliance with the order and that this proceeding should be reopened for the purpose of modifying and a.ltering the decision and order in those respects: It is thepefol'e ordel'ed. That this proceeding be, and it hereby , reopened.

the Commis- It is fu1'thel' ordered That the third paragraph of sion s decision be, find it hereby is, strieken and the following inserted 111 leu Llereo .

The respondents and counsel for the Commission having executed an ar.u'eel11ent containing,Q.' an flc1mission bv respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the said complaint which had of said agreement is been i~sued, a statement that the signing for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in said complaint. and waive.rs and other provisions as required by the Commission s Rules, and which flgreement further provides that the order contained therein shall become finn 1 , within the meaning of the Clayton Act, as amended. on the date of final disposition of the proceedings In the 31 (reel' of linoll Associates, 111..0. Docket No. 8:')48, now pending: on petition for review be.fore the united States Court of Appeals for the. S(~venth Circuit: flnd second paragraph of the Commis- I tis fU1'the?' o'JYlered That the sion s order which directs the filing of a report of compliance. be, and it hereby is, strieken.