Herbert R. Gibson, Sr

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

IN THE MATTER OF HERBERT R. GIBSON, SR., ET AL.

Docket 9016. Interlocutory Order, November 8, 1978 ORDER DENYING Motion To WITHDRAW MATTER FROM ADJUDICATION The administrative law judge has certified to the Commission a consent settlement proposed by respondents Herbert R. Gibson, Sr., and Belva Gibson. The consent is the second such consent proposal by these respondents, the first having been denied by the Commission on September 21, 1976.

Complaint counsel have expressed opposition to the proposed agreement primarily because it would allow respondents to establish trade show fees based on volume of sales. Complaint counsel maintain that:

[I]f Gibson Senior can get suppliers to pay a percentage of their sales to him in order _ to participate in the Gibson Trade Show, (which is exactly what he does now and what this case is all about) there has to be an actual or perceived connection between Gibson Senior and the Gibson store buyers. In other words, . . . separation and insistence upon Volume exclusion are mutually contradictory.' We are not persuaded, however, that the manner in which the trade show fees are set bears a necessary relationship to the question of insuring separation between the Gibson Trade Show and the Gibson retail operation. As we noted in response to the first proposed consent settlement, a key element of any acceptable settlement is the assurance that respondents maintain a “high, impenetrable wall” between the two operations. In our view this objective can be achieved short of restricting the methods for establishing trade show fees.

Nevertheless, despite our differences with complaint counsel on the fee issue, we do not believe it is appropriate to remove the proposed settlement from litigation. There are simply too many deficiencies in the proposal to warrant withdrawal at this time. For example, we are not satisfied that the proposed order adequately assures that the trade show will be open on a non-discriminatory basis to all suppliers and retailers. Other concerns are described in the law judge’s order certifying the proposed settlement. See Certification to the Commission of a Consent Settlement Offered by Respondents H.R. Gibson, Sr. and Belva Gibson at 8-9. ' Answer in Opposition to Motion for Conference to Consider Disposition of Proceeding Without Further Litigation and for Certification of Proposed Settlement Agreement at 4-5. . ey ery ae tee wee 834 Interlocutory Order While a settlement may be attainable, we believe the nature and extent of the issues remaining are such that further negotiations should continue in the context of the adjudicatory proceeding under the supervision of the administrative law judge. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the motion to withdraw matter from adjudication be, and the same hereby is, denied. Interlocutory Order 92 F.T.C.