Amrep Corporation
Volume 88 · 88 F.T.C. 457
Cite this decision
Amrep Corporation, 88 F.T.C. 457 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v088-0052
Report an error in this record (decision id v088-0052)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF AMREP CORPORATION Docket 9018. Order, Sept. 28, 1976 Administrative law judge’s recommendation to obtain transcript of grand jury testimony taken under advisement pending report from administrative law judge, upon resumption of administrative hearing, relative to disclosure to the parties of said testimony in the criminal trial. Appearances For the Commission: Perry W. Winston, Jon R. Calhoun and George E. Schulman.
For the respondent: Martin M. Maneker, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City and Peter W. Williamson and Michael E. Schoeman, New York City.
ORDER The administrative law judge on July 6, 1976, certified to the Commission a recommendation that appropriate action be taken to obtain transcripts of grand jury testimony of various witnesses named in a subpoena duces tecum issued by the administrative law Judge on June 17, 1976, who have testified, or are expected to testify, during the presentation of complaint counsel’s case-in-chief. On August 2, 1976, the ALJ, in a supplementary report, advised that the transcripts of two of the witnesses have been made available to the parties in the instant proceeding and that two of the witnesses did not testify before the grand jury. The ALJ now recommends that the Commission attempt to procure the testimony of the fifth witness, Paul W. Heinz. The recommendation, however, may be mooted if the testimony is made available to defendant Amrep during the course of the trial in United States v. Amrep Corp., 75 Cr. 1028 (S.D. N.Y.), pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. §38500.! The Commission will, therefore, take the recommendation under advisement pending the certification of a report by the ALJ upon the resumption of the administrative hearing indicating whether complaint counsel intend to call Mr. Heinz as a witness, and, if so, whether Mr. Heinz’ grand jury testimony was disclosed to the parties during the course of the criminal trial.
It is so ordered.
Commissioner Dole not participating by reason of absence. 1 The Commission need not now address the question whether respondent is entitled to the testimony for use in the instant proceeding.
223-239 O - 77 - 30 Complaint 88 F.T.C.