Kellogg Company
Volume 93 · 93 F.T.C. 213
Cite this decision
Kellogg Company, 93 F.T.C. 213 (1979). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v093-0012
Report an error in this record (decision id v093-0012)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF KELLOGG COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket 8883. Interlocutory Order, Jan. 29. 1979 Order denying motion to disqualify FT Chairman and each other Commissioner advied in advance of proposal to retain AL on contract basis. ORDER On December 7, 1978, General Foods Corporation filed a motion to disqualify Chairman Pertschuk and each other Commissioner advised in advance of the proposal to retain Judge Hinkes on a contract basis. On January 11, 1979, the Chairman responded to General Foods' motion and refused to disqualify himself. That response was placed on the public docket and served on the parties. In responding to General Foods' alternative motion that the Commission itself determine whether the Chairman should be disqualified from participating in these proceedings, ' we see no reason to differ from the result reached by the Chairman. The Chairman s actions were undertaken pursuant to his administrative authority under Reorganization Plan No. 8 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1264. The documents which have been released, and the Chairman statement of December 8, clearly indicate that his actions in this matter were taken without reference to the merits of the case. Under the circumstances we do not believe that any bias, prejudgment or apparent unfairness has been demonstrated. Cinderella Career & Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 425 F.2d 583, 591 (D.C. Cir. 1970); Amos Treat Co. v. SEC, 306 F.2d 260, 267 (D.C. Cir. 1962). As to General Foods' motion to disqualify each of the Commissioners who had advance knowledge of the Hinkes contract, the record is clear that no such Commissioner was so advised. Accordingly, It is ordered. That the motion of General Foods Corporation to disqualify FTC Chairman Michael Pertschuk and each other Commissioner advised in advance of the proposal to retain Judge Hinkes on a contract basis be, and the same hereby is, denied. Chairman Pertschuk and Commissioner Pitofsky did not participate.
I General Foo argues that the Chairman should be disualified not only from participating in any decision with reaped to the Hinkes contract, but also from participating in any future deliberations in this ca. Complaint 93 F.