Herbert R. Gibson, Sr

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

IN THE MATTER OF HERBERT R. GIBSON, SR., D/B/A THE GIBSON TRADE SHOW, ET AL.

Docket 9016. Interlocutory Order, Nov. 2, 1976 Denial of petition for reconsideration of Commission’s order denying motion to withdraw matter from adjudication for settlement purposes. Appearances For the Commission: John J. Hemrick and Andre Trawick, Jr. For the respondents: Bardavell D. Odum, Dallas, Tex., David A. Donohoe, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Wash., D.C., and John M. Gillis, Gillis, Rogers & Taylor, Dallas, Tex. ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Respondents Herbert R. Gibson, Sr. and Belva Gibson petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s order of September 21, 1976, denying their motion to withdraw this matter from adjudication for settlement purposes. They ask that the Commission await a decision by the administrative law judge on their Motion to Recommend Commission Acceptance of the Proposed Consent Order before determining whether there is a sufficient likelihood of settlement to warrant a withdrawal from adjudication.

The instant petition must be denied since it does not set forth “new questions raised by the decision * * * upon which the petitioner had no opportunity to argue before the Commission” as required by Section 3.55 of the Rules of Practice. The Commission has, however, reviewed respondents’ Motion to Recommend, the accompanying memorandum, and complaint counsel’s answer and adheres to its view that there is not a “likelihood of settlement.” Rules of Practice, Section 3.25(b). In their September 29 answering memorandum, complaint counsel argue that a combination of remedies consisting of “the Gibson Trade Show being required to go out of business or operate non-profit * * * is essential to adequately protect the public interest.” The Commission would be willing to consider alternative consensual relief to those remedies, if it can be devised, in view of respondents’ representations in their June 24 memorandum that they are willing to agree to “a guarantee (under pain of substantial monetary penalties) that there will be a high, impenetrable wall between the business of respondent Order 88 F.T.C.

H.R. Gibson, Sr. and that of the licensor and licensees of Gibson Discount Centers.”! We are not satisfied that respondent’s present proposal accomplishes such a separation, however, and as noted by the administrative law judge in his certification, other deficiencies in the proposed agreement make it clear that there is no present likelihood of settlement. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the aforesaid petition be, and it hereby is, denied. Commissioner Dole did not participate by reason of absence. 1 For example, the statutory prohibition in Section 2(c) of Robinson-Patman speaks in relevant part of “an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of” the buyer. 15 U.S.C. § 13(c). USLIFE CREDIT CORP., ET AL. 739 739 Order