Aeration Processes, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF AERATION PROCESSES, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT SETTLEMENT IN ImGAHD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION 01' SEC. 2 (a) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED Docket 6152. Complaint, Dee. 18 1953 Deeision, June 10, 1954 'Vhere a rorpora Uon engaged in the competitive interstate sale and distributioli throughout the United States of the aerated food products "Instantwhip SUIJplied and "lnstantwhip Topping" through SOlne 4H licensees, whom it with containers, processing machinery and equipment, and to whom it sold vanilla and nitrous oxide, and who processed said Inaterials, together with others locally proeUl'ed into the finished food products "lustantwhip" and Instantwhip Topping" for sale to drug stores, soda fountains, etc. ; four licensees of said corporation, engaged, under its direction and control, in processing and selling said food products in and around the foul' cities of Worcester, 1\1a8s. , Providence, R. I. , Baltin10re, Md. , and nriugeport CODTI. ; and seven otlicers or directors of said corporate licensor, and two of whom were officers also of said four corporate licen ees; engaged ill their various capacities in the competitive interstate sale and distribution of such products and acting in cooperation with each other- (a) Discriminated in price between different purchaeers of such food prod ucts of like grade and quality by selling said products to some of their customers at higher prices than to others in that said corporate liccnsor and , Inc., acting by and corporate respondent licensee, Instanhvllip-\Vol'cest.er through their individual respondent ottcers-- (1) Yollowing the adoption on J\ay 1 , 1950, of a cumulative monthly discount schedule applicable to all customers in thc entire territory of said corporate licensee, and the adoption on January 1 , 1951 , of a less favorable discount schedule applicable to customers therein, failed to put into effect in Springfjeld, Mass., and surrounding territory said Jan. 1 , 19G1, schedule but kept in effect the fonner and lower May 1, 1950, discount schedule; and (2) Following the adoption on Jan. 14, UJ52, of a less favorable discount schedule applicable to customers located in said licensee's territory, fail cd to put into effect in Springfield and surroumling territory saiel schedule, but adopted instead a lower discount schedule;

(b) Discriminated in price as aforesaid iu that said corpol' ate licensor and , Inc., acting by and corporate respondent licensee lnstantwhip-l'rovidcllce through their individual respondent offcel's-- (1) Following the adoption on May 1, 1950, of a eumnlative monthly discount schedule applicahle to all customers in the entire territory of said Instantwhip, including a "single stop, individual customer schedule and a "multiple stop" schedule applieable to fwo or more individual customers on t.he basis of their eumulative purchases under the "mnltiple stop" schedule, failed to put into effect in the Stnt" of Connecticnt fhe "multiple stop" portion of aforesaid discount schedule, but sold 1.0 customers in said State solely on the basis of the more favorable " single stop" portion of the schedule in question; and . , AERATION PROCESSES INC. ET AL. 995 994 Consent Settlement (2) Following the adoption on ,lan. 1 , U)51 , of a less favorable cumulative montbly volume discount or schedule of prices applicable to customers located within the territory of said "Instantwhlp-Providence " failed to put into effect said schedule in said State, but continued to sell to customers located therein pursuant to the old and lower May 1 , 1850 single stop" schedule of prices, and did not alter or affect the character or extent of said discriminations through increasing the Jan. 1, 1951 , discount schedule by one cent while similarly increasing their :\lay I , 1850 single stop" schedule hy a like amount;

(c) Discriminated in price as aforesaid in that said corporate licensor and licensee Instantwhip-BaltiulOl'e, Inc., acting by and through their individual respondent offcers, while seUing, during J\JG2, their 30% butterfat aerated food prodnets pursuant to a cumulative Inonthly discount schedule to customers in said lieensec s entire territory, failed to put into effect in Washington, D. C. , Raid schedule, but instead, through a branch offce, sold to its said \Vashington customers pursuant to a diffcrcnt and more favorable one; and (d) Discriminated in price as aforesaid in that said corporate licensor and corporate licensee InsLantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., acting by alld through their individual respondent offcers- (1) Ii"ol1owing the establishmeni, on l\lay l 1f150, of a cumlliative monthly volume discount. schedule applicable to a11 customers in the entire area of said corporate licensee, prol'needed t.o establish higher schedules of monthly volume discounts through tbe New England area during the years 1961 and 1952 t.han the aforesaid discount schedule; and (2) Following the adoption, on .lan. I, 1951, of a cumulative monthly discount schedule of prices which were applicable to customers located within the territory of said corporate lieensee and which were lc s favorable than said JitlY 1 9GO, schedule, and were increased. on Feb. 11, 1952, by one cent as to each and every price bracket therein contained, continued in force and e1'Cect as to a11 purchasers located ill the territory of said corporate licensee, the old original cumulative monthly discount schedule established on l\iay 1950 ; 'Vlth the result that many retail outlets, by reason of aforesaid discriminatory prices hy respondents, discontinued the purchase of such aerated food products from respondents' c01Ilpetitors, either in whole or in part: lfeld That such discriminations in price, under the circuntstances set forth constitut.ed a violation of t11e provisions of Subsection (a) of Section 2 of thc Clayton Act, as amended.

Before kit. Abner E. Lipscomb hearing examiner. Mr. William O. Kern and Mr-. AndTcw O. Goodhope for the CommJSSJOn.

Mr' . John A. Ecklcl' of Columbus, Ohio, for respondents. CONSENT SETTLEJlIEXT 1 Pursuant to the provisions of an Act of Congress entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes " approved October 15, 1914 (the Clayton 1 See footnote on following page.

Findings 501;' '1. C. Act), as amended by an Act of Congress approved June 19, 1936 (the Robinson- Patman Act), the Federal Trade Commission, en December , 1953, issued and subsequently served its complaint on the respondents named in the caption hereof, charging them with violation of subsection (a) of Section 2 of said Clayton Act, as amended. The respondents, desiring that this proceeding be disposed of by the consent settlement procedure provided in Rule V of the Commission Hules of Practice, solely for the purposes of this proceeding, any review thereof, and the enforcement of the order consented to, and conditioned upon the Commission s acceptance of the consent settlement hereinafter set forth, and in lieu of answer to said complaint hereby:

1. Admit all the jurisdictional allegations set forth in the complaint. 2. Consent that the Commission may eIlter the matters hereinafter set forth as its findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order to cease and desist. It is understood that the respondents, in eonsenting to the Commission s entry of said findings as to the facts, conclusion, and order to cease and desist, specifically refrain from admitting or denying that they have engaged in any of the acts or practices stated therein to be in violation of law.

3. Agree that this consent settlement may be set aside in whole or in part under the conditions and in the manner provided in paragraph (f) of Hule V of the Commission s Hules of Practice. The admitted jurisdictional facts, the statement of the acts and practices which the Commission had reason to believe were unlawful the conclusion based thereon, and the order to cease and desist, all of which the respondents consent may be entered herein iil final disposition of this proceeding, are as follows: FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio with its principal offce and place of business located at 869 McKinley A venue Columbus, Ohio.

Respondent Instantwhip-J3ridgeport, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its :1 'l' he Commission s "Notice " announcing and promulgating the consent settlement as publislJed herewith, follows :

The consent setUenH'nt tendercrl by the parties in this pl'occNling, a cop.y of which is served herewith, was accepted by the COIImis ion on .June 10, 1954 , and ordered entered of record as the Commission s findings as to the fads. conclusion, and order in llisllosition of this proceeding.

TIle time for 1lin report of compliance pursuant to the afore ahl linler TllDS from the ria 1:e at seryke hereof.

AERATION PROCESSES, INC., ET AL. 997 994 Findings principal offce and place of business at 278 East Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Respondent Instantwhip-Providence, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Rhode Island and has its principal offce and place of business located at 881 Charles Street North Providence, Rhode Island.

Respondent Instantwhip- vVorcester, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the St.ate of J'.fassachusetts and has its principal offce and place of business at 1068 west Boylston Street vVorcester, Massachusetts.

Respondent Instantwhip-Baltimore, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland and has its principal offce and place of business at 420 West 24th Street, Baltimore, .Mary land.

Respondent G. Frederick Smith is an individual and is president of respondent Aeration Processes, Inc.

Respondent Allyne H. Smith is an individual and is vice president and treasurer of respondent Aeration Processes, Inc.; he is also the president of respondents Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., Instantwhip- Providence, Inc. , Instantwhip-vV orcester, Inc., and Instantwhip- Daltimore, Inc.

Respondent John Elmer Jones, Sr., is an individual and is vice president and secretary of respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. ; he is also the secretary of corporate respondents Instantwhip-Bridgeport Inc., Instantwhip-Providence, Inc., Instantwhip-Worcester, Inc., and Instantwhip-Baltimore, Ine.

Respondent John Elmer .Tones, Jr., is an individual and director of corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. Respondent Ernest R. Oldham is an individual and director of corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. Respondent R. A. Grieve is an individual and director of corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc.

Respondent S. S. Oldham is an individual and director of corporate respondent Aeration Procesoes, Inc.

PAR. 2. Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., is a closely held corporation whose principal officers are respondents G. Frederick Smith, President, AlJyne I-I. Smith, Vice President- Treasurer, and John Elmer Jones, Sr., Vice President-Secretary. All of the individual respondents named in these Jlndings direct and control the sales policies and business activities of the corporate respondents with which they are connected in the capacities described in Paragraph 1 and all of said respondents act together and in cooperation with each other in doing the acts and practices hereinafter found. Findings 50 F. T. C.

PAR. 3. An of said respondents are now, and for many years last past have been, engaged in the sale and distribution throughout the United States of aerated food products under the trade name "Instantwhip" and lnstantwhip Topping. Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. , supplies its various licensees, hereinafter more fully described, with containers, vanila, nitrous oxide, processing machinery and equipment and replacements parts therefor with which such licensees process the said food products. The containers and processing equipment remain the property of Aeration Processes, Inc., even though they are in possession of respondents' licensees, and vanila and nitrous oxide are sold by Aeration Processes, Inc., to its various licensees. Said licensees generally procure cream mix, vegetable fats and sweetening materials from local sources and together with the said products procured from Aeration Processes, Inc., process same with the processing machinery and equipment similarly obtained into the said finished food products "lnstantwhip" and "Instrmtwhip Topping.

PAR. 4. Respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. , has a written license agreement with approximately 48 licensees (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "points ). Pursuant to these agreements, respondents licensees are permitted to process and sell "Instantwhip" and '' Instantwhip Topping" and pay respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. , a royalty on each container of such products sold. The licensees sell these filled containers to drug stores, clubs, soda fountains, restaurants and other similar retail establishments for use on various food products, such as pies, sundaes and other like products. Respondents Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., Instantwhip-Providence, Ine., Instantwhip-Woreester, Inc., and Instantwhip-Baltimore Inc., are alj corporations that are licensees of respondent Aenttion Processes, Inc., and process and sell aerated food products pursuant to a written license agreement which each has with respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. These various corporations sell in and around the various cities whose names are a part of the corporate title of each. PAR. 5. Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., acting under the direction of the indi vidual respondents above named who are offcials of said corporate respondent, directs and controls the operations including pricing practices and other policies, of all the other corporate respondents named in these findings with whom said corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc. , has entered into license agreements.

PAR. 6. All respondents, whether individuals or corporations, are engaged in the various capacities hereinabove described in the business of distributing aerated food products in commerce throughout ___ ,,: AERATIOK PROCESSES, INC.) ET AL. 999 994 Findings the United States or are offcials, directors, or stockholders in corporations so engaged. In the course and conduct of their business, the respondents have sold and shipped, and do now sell and ship, the products hereinbefore described in commerce between and among the various States of the United States from the States in which their respective factories or processing plants are located to purchasers thereof located in other States of the United States and the District of Columbia, within the intent and meaning of the word "commerce " as used in said Clayton Act, as amended. There is, and has been at all times herein mentioned, a continuous current of trade in commerce in said products across State lines between respondents and purchasers of respondents' products. Said products are sold and distributed for use, consumption, and resale within the various States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

PAR. 7. In the course and conduct of their business, as aforesaid the respondents IUtVe been and are now engaged in competition in commerce with other persons, corporations, and Jlrms likewise engaged in the business of processing and sellng aerated food products between and among the various States of the United States and in the District of Columbia.

PAR. 8. The respondents, in the course and conduct of their business as hereinabove set forth, have been and now are discriminating in price between different purchasers of aerated food products of like grade and quality by selling said products to some of their customers at higher prices than 10 other of their customers. PAR. 9. The discriminations in price referred to in Paragraph 8 hereof have been and now are effective in the northeastern area of the United States and are more particularly described as follows: 1. (a) Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., and corporate respondent Instantwhip-vVorceoter, Inc., acting by and through their said individual respondent offcials above named, on May 1 1950 adopted the following cumulative monthly discount schedule applicable to all customers in the entire territory of said corporate respondent Instantwhip-Worcester, Inc.

Single Stop Multiple Stop Price Gontai1'W1" PriceConta1:ners 49 __ ___n________nn__ _- 35 299 ------ ---- 354 50-99 ---- --- 33 30099 -n____n_ nnn 311 100-149 -- -- 311 500-999 ---- ---- 294 150-199 ----- _n_n_____n - 301 1000-up - ------ 271 200-299 ------- - 291 300-up -- __n___n______n ___- 274 (In all instances where used in these findings, the term "single stop customers refers to an individual customer whose volume discount was __ , ____ J;'indings 50 F. T. C. given on the basis of the purchases made by that individual customer during a monthly period. "Multiple stop" refers to two or more individual customers whose cumulative purchases form the basis for granting the monthly discount under the multiple stop quantity discOlmt schedule applicable. ) Moreover, on January 1 , 1951, said respondents, with the exception later described, adopted the following eumulative monthly discount schedule applicable to customers located in said territory of the corporate respondent Instantwhip-W orcester Inc. :

Single Stop Multiple Stop Price PriceContainers Containers 100 -- --- 351 300 --- ---- 351 101-200 --- ---- 331 301-400 _____ ____nn__n_- 331 201-300 ----------------------- 321 401-500 ---- -------- 321 301-np --------------- -------- 311 501-800 ------------- - 311 However, said discount schedule of January 1 , 1951, was not put into effect in Springfield, Massachusetts, and surrounding territory by said respondents but instead the former and lower May 1, 1950 discount schedule was kept in effect by said respondents in said Springfield territory.

(b) Said respondents on January 14 1952, adopted, with the exception later described, the following cumulative monthly discount schedule applicable to all customers located in the territory of said corporate respondent Instantwhip-vV orcester, Inc.

Price 100 _ -------______n_ - 37'1 Containers 101-200 __ _n______ ___n_ ___n_- 35 201-300 --.--- -- 341 301- u p - - - - - -- - - 331 However, said discount schedule was not put into effect in Springfield, Massachusetts, and surrounding territory, but rather the following lower cumulative monthly discount schedule was adopted by said respondents for said territory:

Containers Price 49 -- --- - - ---- 37 50-99 ------------- -- 341 1 O( 149 -- --------- 32 150-199 --- - -- 200-299 --- ---------- - 291 BOO-lip ---- ---- ----- 271 2. (a) Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., and corporate respondent Instantwhip-Providence, Inc., acting by and through their said irldividual respondent oilcials above named, on May 1, 1950 AERATION PROCESSES , INC., ET AL. 1001 994 Findings adopted, with the exception later described, the following cumulative monthly discounts schedule applicable to all customers in the entire territory of said corporate respondent lnstantwhip-Providence, Inc. Single Stop Multiple Stop Price Oontainers PriceContainers 49 ------ - 351 299 ------------- -- 351 50-99 ----------------- - 331 300-499 ---------------------- 31 100- J 49 ----------------------- 31 500-999 ---------------------- 291 1 50- 1 99 ------- ------------ 301 1000-up ----------------------- 28 200-299 ------- --- 291 300-up ----- ----------- 28 However, said respondents did not put into effect the multiple stop portion of said discount schedule above described in the State of Connecticut but sold to customers in the State of Connecticut solely on the basis of the single stop portion of said discount schedule above described.

(b) Furthermore, on January 1 , 1951, said respondents adopted with the exception below noted, the following cumulative monthly volume diocount schedule of prices applicable to customers located within the said territory of corporate reopondent lnstantwhip- Providence, Inc. :

Single Stop Multiple Stop P'rice PriceContainers Containers 100 -- ----- 35 300 -- --------------- 35 --___n____- 331101-200 - nnu ___n ;)3 301--400 ____n____ 201-300 - -------- 32 401- 500 ----------------------- 321 30l-up ---- -- 311 501-up -- -- 31 However, said discount schedule was not put into effect by said respondents in the State of Connecticut and said respondents continued to sell to customers located in Connecticut pursuant to the old and lower May 1 , 1950, single stop schedule of discounts. Although on February 11, 1952, said respondents increased their January 1, 1951, discount schedule by lot and their old May 1, 1950 single stop schedule by lot, this did not in any way alter or eflect the character and extent of the discriminations in price above described which continued in full force and effect.

3. Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., and corporate respondent lnstantwhip-Baltimore, Inc., acting by and through their said individual respondent offcials above named, during the year 1952 sold their 30% butterfat aerated food products, with the exception later described, pursuant to the following cumulative monthly discount schedule to all customers in the entire territory of said corporate respondent, Instantwhip-Baliimore, Inc.

____ Findings 50 F. T. C.

Single Stop Multiple Stop Discount DiscountOontainers Oontainers -- 451 (base price) 50-- -- 451 (base price) 0-300- --- 7 h 0/0 51-100_ ---- 7 0/0 300-400_-_----- --- 12 12 101- 200- -- 12'1 401--500----- 200-300_---- - 150/0 500 up- 150/0 However, said discount schedule during said period was not put into , D. but rather said respondents, through aeffect in Washington branch once of said corporate respondent Instantwhip- Baltimore , D. pursuant to the fol- Inc., sold to its customers in 'IVashington lowing eumulative monthly discount schedule: Single Stop Multiple Stop Containers Discount Con, tained8 Discount - 401 (base price) 50- - 401 (base price) 300-- - 7 51--1()L- - 71j 300--400- ----- 12'1 101--200- -- 12 ho/ 400-500- 201--300----- --- 15% GOO np-- - 20% 301 up--- --- 20% Inc. , and corporate 4. Corporate respondent Aeration I' rocesses, respondent Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., acting by and through their said individual respondent oiIcials above named, established on May 1 J 950, a cumulative monthly volume discount schedule applicable to all customers in the entire area of said corporate respondent Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., as follows:

Containers Price Contained,'s P,'ice 1--49____ - 351 150-199__ -- 301 50--99__ ------ 331 200--299-- -- 291 100-149------------ 311 300 up- ---- 271 Corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Inc., acting by and through its individual respondent offcials and by and through the other corporate respondents and their individual respondent oifeials herein named as respondento, other than corporate respondent Instantwhip-Bridgeport, lnc" proceeded to establish higher schedules of mOJJthly volume discounts throughout the New England area during the years 1951 and 1952 tlmn the said diocount schedule of corporate as above respondent Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc. For example, found, corporate respondent Aeration Procesocs, Inc., and corporate respondent Instantwhip- vVorcester, Inc., acting by and through their said individual respondent officials above named adopted OIl ,January , 1952, the following cumulative discount schedule applicable to an customers located in the territory of said corporate respondent Instantwhip- Torcester, Inc.

___ ______ ___ ___ AERATION PROCESSES , INC.) ET AL. 1003 fJH Conclusion Containers Pr' ice 37 100 - __n nn_ un 101-200 - -- 35 201-300 -- ------ 34 301-up - - - Likewise, on January 1 , 1951, as hereinabove found, corporate respondent Aeration Processes, Ine., and corporate respondent lnstantwhip-Providence, Inc., acting by and through their said individual respondent oficials above named, adopted the following cumulative monthly discount schedule of prices applicflble to customers located within the said lerritory of said corporate respondent lnstantwhip- Providence, Inc. :

Single Stop Multiple Stop Containers Price Containers Price 100 _ - n _- 3G 300 - -- 35 101-20n __ 301-400 n _u__ -_U 201- nn _ . n n _ - 3U 401-500 ----- --- 32 301-up _ _____n ____- 31 50l-up -- _u_n___ ____n- 31 IVforeover, on February II , lD52, as hereinabove found, said respondents increased sllid .J annary 1 , 1951, discount schedule by 10 as to mlCh and every price bracket c:contained in said CUHlU lative monthly discount schedule.

However, corporate resnondent Aeration Processes, Inc., and corpoate respondent Instantwhip- BridgepOlt, Inc., by and through their said individual respondent offcials, continued in force and effect as to all purchasers located in the territory of corporate respondent Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., the old original cumulatiVl monthly volume discount schedule eotablished on May 1 1950. PAR. 10, As a result of the discriminatory prices of respondents in the sale of aerated food products, as found in Paragraph 9 hereof and by reason of respondents' said discriminatory prices, many retail outlets discontinued the purchase of aerated food products from respondents' competitors, either in whole or in part. The effect of the discriminations in price made by the respondents in the sale of aerated food products as set forth in Paragraph 9 hereof may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in the line of commerce in which respondents are engaged nd to injure, destroy, or prevent competition between respondents and their competitors.

CONCL1JSlON The aforesaid discriminations in price by the respondents, as found in Paragraph 9 hereof and having the effects and tendeneies as found Order 50F. '1' . C. in Paragraph 10 hereof constitute a violation of the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Aet, as amended. ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST It is ordered That each of the respondents Aeration Processes, Inc. a corporation, Instantwhip-Bridgeport, Inc., a corporation, Instantwhip-Providence, Inc., a corporation, Instantwhip-Worcester, Inc., a corporation, Instantwhip-Baltimore, Inc., a corporation, and their respective offcers, and G. Frederick Smith, Allyne I-I. Smith, John Elmer Jones, Sr., John Elmer Jones, Jr., Ernest R. Oldham, R. A. Grieve, and S. S. Oldham, individually, and said respondents' agents representatives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in the sale of aerated food products in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the said Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from discriminating in price by selling said aerated food products of like grade and quality to any purchaser at prices lower than those charged other purelmsers when the respondents or any of them is in competition with any other seller in the sale of such products. I t is further ordered That respondents shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, me with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist. Aeration Processes, Inc.

By (Sgd) John Elmer Jones, Sr.

Secretary.

Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

Instantw hip- Bridgeport, Inc.

By (Sgd) J olm Elmer .J ones, Sr.

Secreta?"J.

Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

Instantwhip-Providence, Inc.

By (Sgd) John Elmer Jones, Sr.

Secretary.

Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

Instantwhip-Worcester, Inc.

By (Sgd) John Elmer .Jones, Sr.

Secretary.

Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

Instantwhip-Baltimore, Inc.

(Sgd) John Elmer Jones, Sr.

Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

AERATION PROCESSES, INC.) ET AL. 1 Unit Order (Sgd) G. Frederick Smith G. FREDERICK SMITH Date: Mareh 20, 1954.

(Sgd) Allyne H. Smith ALI,Y~E 11. SMITH Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

(Sgd) John Elmer ,Jones, Sr.

John ELMER ,JONES, SR.

Date: Feb. 19 , 1954.

(Sgd) John Elmer Jones, Jr.

JOHN ELMER J ONES, JR.

Date: Feb. 25 , 1954.

(Sgd) Ernest R. Oldham ERNEST R. OLDHAM Date: March 15, 1954.

(Sgd) R. A. Grieve R. A. GRIEVE Date: Mareh 8, 1954.

(Sgd) S. S. Oldham S. S. OIJJlIAM Date: March G, 1954.

The foregoing eonsent settlement is hereby accepted by the Federal Trade Commission and ordered entered of record on this the 10th day of June 1954.

, Decision 30 F. T. C.