Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc

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

-RONZONI MACARONI co, INC.

“consnxr ORDER, EIC., “IN REGARD TO: THE ALLEGED VIOLATION (OF ' THE “' “CLAYTON ‘AGT, SECTION 2(a) s Docket: C82 bh. ‘Complaint, daly: ii, 1912—-Decision, July. 11, 1972. ‘ Gonsent order requiring a Long Island City, New York, manufacturer of macaroni, ‘macaroni products, sauces and grated cheeses to cease discriminating i in price between: ‘competing: resellers or. distributors: of its Products. bt * Compnarnr 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 (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (U.S.C., Title 15, Section 13), “hereby i issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows:

“Paracrarn i. “Respondent Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc., ‘is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, with its office and principal place of business located at 50-02 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, New York.

Par. 2. Respondent has been and is now engaged i in the manufacture, sale and distribution of macaroni, macaroni products, sauces and -grated cheeses, Respondent sells its said products to a large number of customers located in many parts of the United States purchasing such _ products for use, consumption or resale therein, including wholesalers, retailers and retail chain stores. Respondent’s sales of its products are substantial, exceeding $10,000,000 annually. Par. 3. Respondent sells and causes its products to be transported from its principal place of business in the State of New York to pur- ‘chasers located’in other States of the United States. There has been at -all times mentioned herein a continuous course of trade in said products in commerce, as “commerce” is. defined in the Clayton Act, as amended.

Par. 4.-In the course ‘and conduct of its business in commerce, respondent sells its products of like grade and quality to purchasers who are in substantial competition with each other in the resale and distribution of respondent's like products.

84 FEDERAL TRADE ‘COMMISSION: DECISIONS Decision and ‘Order 81 F.T.C.

Par. 5. In the course and conduct of its business in commerce, and particularly since 1968, respondent has discriminated in price between different purchasers of its products of like grade and quality by selling . Said. products. to some purchasers at higher and. less favorable prices than the prices charged competing purchasers for such products of like grade and quality.

Par. 6. For ‘example, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, respondent. deviated from its. published, price. lists, and gave certain retail food .chain stores substantial price discounts on its.entire line of products, but did not offer or grant such discounts to:competing customers purchasing substantially the same quantity of products of like grade and quality from respondent. ~ Par. 7. The effect of such discriminations in price made by respondent in the sale of its products, as ‘hereinbefore set forth, may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly i in the lines of. commerce in which the favored purchasers from respondent are engaged, .or to. injure, ‘destroy or prevent, competition with the favored purchasers from respondent who receive the discriminatory lower prices.

Pax. 8. The discriminations in price made by respondent in ‘the sale of its products, as hereinbefore alleged, are in violation of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson- Patman Act.

Decision snp Orper The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Competition proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with a violation of the Clayton Act, as amended, and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission’s rules; and ;

The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has violated said Act, and that complaint should issue stating its charges «<1; RONZONE: MACARONI .C0.;.. INC. ::-: 55. 85: 83 Decision: and. Order in that respect, and having: thereupon, accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30). ‘days, now-in further conformity with the. procedure prescribed in Section 2.34(b) of its rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: . .

1. Respondent: Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc., is.a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Its principal office and. place. of business i is located. at. 50-02 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, New. York. 2. The Federal Trade Commission ‘has: jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

- ~ . ORDER _It is ordered, That respondent Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc, a Corpo-. ration, and its officers, employees, agents and representatives, directly or through any corporate or other device, in or in connection with the: offering for sale,:sale.or distribution of any of its products in commerce, as “commerce” is-defined in the Clayton Act, as amended, 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 competing in fact in the resale or distribution of such products. “Net price” as used in this order shall mean the ultimate cost to the purchaser, and, for purposes of determining such cost, there shall be taken into account all rebates, allowances, commissions, discounts, credit arrangements, terms and conditions of sale, and other forms of direct and indirect price reductions, by which ultimate cost to the purchaser is affected.

It is further ordered, That respondent Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc., shall forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

-It is further ordered, That respondent Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc., notify the Commission at least 30 days prior to any proposed change in the corporate respondent such as dissolution, assignment or sale resulting in the emergence of a successor corporation, the creation or dissolution of subsidiaries or any other change in the corporation which may affect compliance obligations arising out of the order. It is. further ordered, That respondent Ronzoni Macaroni Co., Inc., shall, within sixty (60) days after service 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 this order. 86° FEDERAL’ TRADE ! COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint’! 5 81 F.T.G.: