Koscot Interplanetary, Inc
Volume 86 · 86 F.T.C. 1106
deceptive advertisingfranchise business opportunityprice discriminationresale price maintenance
Cite this decision
Koscot Interplanetary, Inc, 86 F.T.C. 1106 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v086-0142
Report an error in this record (decision id v086-0142)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF KOSCOT INTERPLANETARY, INC., ET AL.
ORDER, Opinion ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AND SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 8888. Cm/lplaint, May ':4, 197't- Fhtul o-rder NOI). 18 1!rl;j Order requiring an Orlando, 1"la., seller and di"tributor, of cosmetics and cosmetic distributorships, among other thing" to cease using its open-ended, multilevel marketing plan; engaging in ilegal price fixing and price discrimination and imposing- sellng and purchasing re"trictionH on its distributors; and to cease making exaggerated earnings claims and other misrepresentations in an effort to recruit distributors.
COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Inc.Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., and Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, corporations, and Glenn W. Turner, Terrell Jones, Malcolm Julian, Ben 1106 F'EDJ.RAL TRAm; COMMISSION DECISIONS Complaint 86 F.T.
Appearances For the Commission: Harold E. Kirtz, Karen G. Sokat and Charles W. Corddry, III For the respondent: Michael J. Henke, Vinson, Elkins, Searls Connolly Smith Wash., D.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Respondent American General Insurance Company and intervenor Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland move for reconsideration of an order by the Commission, dated Dec. 5, 1972 rSl F. C. 1052J, vacating the administrative Jaw judge s initial decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The administrative law judge filed an initial decision sustaining the complaint in this matter on Aug. 7, 1975. Respondent and intervenor have failed to make a sufficient showing why the Commission should grant their motion for reconsideration especially after the lapse of almost three years from the date of issuance of the order they seek to challenge. Accordingly, It is ordered That the aforesaid motion for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied.