Georgia-Pacific Corporation

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

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1041 102 Order GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION _ Docket 8843. Order, Nov, 21, 1972.

Order denying motions. to intervene, “and receiving such motions as comments and as briefs amicis-curiae in connection with Commission’ 'S ‘consideration . ofthe settlement proposal. :

Orver Denying Mortons To INTERVENE AND RECEIVING ‘“Mottons AS _ ComMMENTs AND:AS Briers Amicus Curiae.

This matter is before the Commission upon the filing of two motions to intervene. Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (Southeastern) on November’ 10, 1972 filed @ motion to intervene in this proceeding ‘pursuant to Section 3:14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and’ Seetion 5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. It seeks intervention for the purpose of expressing its views on the proposed settlement in the proceeding certified to the Commission by the administrative law’ judge on November 7, 1972: Complaint counsel on ‘November 17; 1972 and’ the réspondent' on November 16, 1972 filed answers to Southeastern’s motion to intervene. The second motion te-intervene was: filed November 17, 197 2 by the following corporations: Forest Sales Corporation, Greensboro Lumber Company, Burt Lumber Company, McCormick Wood Products, Inc., E. F. Cox Lumber Company, J. F. White & Sons, Inc., Culpepper Lumber Company, Wisham Hall Lumber Company, and Union Point Lumber Company. These corporations seek to intervene in this matter in accordance with Section 5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Section 3.14 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for the following stated purposes: “to raise the inadequacies of the relief set forth in the proposed settlement with respect to the Southeast in light of the activities of G—P there and the initial relief sought” (page 12, motion to intervene).

The Commission has determined, upon application made, that it is appropriate to withdraw this matter from adjudication for the pur- ‘pose of considering a settlement by a consent order pursuant to Section 2. 34(d) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, and the Commission is issuing simultaneously with this order an order to that effect. Since the purpose of Southeastern and of the other above-listed corporations in their motions to intervene is to comment on the proposed settlement, their motions will be received as comments and treated as amicus curiae briefs in connection with the Commission’s consideration of the settlement proposal. The Commission, if it subsequently provisionally accepts the proposed settlement, will, while the matter is on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34(b) of the rules, further consider any 1042 FEDERAL TRADE. COMMISSION: DECISIONS Order 81 F.T.C.

additional comments which; Southeastern: and the corporations listed may choose to make.

Finally, in the event the Commission does not approve the proposed settlement and the matter is returned for further adjudication, South- ‘eastern and ‘the. listed: “corporations may, renew. their, motions to, intervene. In these circumstances these motions will. be, denied. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the motion to intervene filed by Southeastern ‘Lumber’ Manufacturers ‘Assodiation and’ the motior: to intervene filed by Forest Sales Corporation; Greensboro “Luiiber’ Company, Burt Lumber,Gompany, McCormick Wood Products, Inc:,.E. F,.Cox Lumber.Company;,.J..F. White, & Sons; Inc., Culpepper Lumber Company, Wisham Hall. Lumber, Company; and: Union: Point. Lumber.Company, corporations; :be,.and ,they hereby, are: denied. without ‘prejudice. to Southeastern, and: to, the corporations: to, renew, these motions in the ‘event, this; matter, ; at. ;some. time, in # future, ,is returned. ;to adjudication,, ; . : bs ighy te _ Lt is, furthe dered, That such. motions. to,. interyme be,. and; they hereby are, received.asy comments, and, as, briefs amicus curiae, in this proceeding. aia ;

. Without, the concurrence, of: Commissioner Jones, as sto the.p provisions of, this. order. dealing nwith. the issues of. intervention. raised. by. these motions..

“FROZEN FOOD FORUM, INC., ET AL. :

; Dochet 8890. Order, Nov. 2h, 1972.

Order rejecting. (1) respondents’ ‘motion. to dismiss complaint ‘counsel’s application for review of administrative law judge’s. order granting an application -for issuance of subpoenas; (2) respondents’ motion for consideration prior to any consideration of complaint counsel’s application; and (3) respondents’ request for a hearing and oral argument ‘on their motion to dismiss. Orvrer Resecrine Motions On September 29, 1972, the administrative law judge issued an order granting respondents’ application for the issuance of certain subpoenas in the above-captioned proceeding, and on October 17, 1972, complaint counsel filed an application for review of said. order. On October 25, 1972, respondents filed a motion requesting the Commission to dismiss complaint counsel’s application for review as untimely, and on November 2, 1972, respondents filed a motion requesting that prior to any consideration of complaint counsel’s application for review, the Commission rule upon. respondents’ motion to dismiss said application, On