Marion County Citrus Company

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

Ix Tile J\IATTEH OF yIP ANY ::IARIOK CO"CXTY CITRUS CO COXSEXT DRDEH, ETC. , REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIQLATIO OF SEC. 2( c) OF THE CLAYTQX ACT Docket 793.1. Complaint, June S, 1960-Decision, May, 1961 Consent order requiring a packer of citrus fruit in 'Veirsdale, Fla., to cease violating Sec. 2(c) of the Clayton Act by paying brokerage, or its equivalent, to customers making purchases fot' their own accounts for resale. Co::rPLAI The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has been and is now violating the provisions of subsection (c) of Seetion 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (U. C. Title 15 , Section 1: ), hereby issues its complaint stating its charges ,,,ith respect thereto a.s follows: P AIL\GRAPH 1. Respondent :Marion County Citrus Company is a corporation orga.nized, existing nnd doing business under and by virtue of the bws of the State of Florida, with jts offce and principal place of business Ioeated at IVeirsdale, Florida. 862 FEDERAL 1'TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 58 F, l'.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for the past several years has been engaged in the business of packing, selling and distributing citrus fruit, such as oranges, tangerines and grapefruit, all of which are hereinafter refened to as citrus fruit or fruit products. ' Respondent sells and distributes its citrus fruit through brokers, as wen as direct, to customers located in many sections of the United States. 'Vhen brokers are utilized in making sales for it, respondent pays them a brokerage or commission, some brokers at the rate of 10 cents pel' 1% bushel box and others at the rate of from 8 to 10 percent of the total amount of the invoiced price of the fruit. ResponcIenfs annual volume of business in the sale and distribution of citrus fruit is substantial.

PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business over the past several years, respondent has sold a.nd distribut.ed and is now selling and dist.ributing its citrus fruit in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, to buyers located in the several states of the L'united States other than the State of Florida in which respondent is located. Respondent transports, or causes such citrus fruit, when sold, to be transported from its place of business or packing plant in the State of Florida, or from other places within the State, to such buyers or to the buyers' customers located in various other states of the L'united States. Thus there has been, at all times mentioned herein, a continuous course of trade in commerce in such citrus fruit across state lines between said re. spondent and the respect.ive buyers of such fruit. PAH. 4. In the course a.nd conduct of its business as aforesaid respondent has been and is now making substantial sales of citrus fruit to some, but not all, of its brokers and direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resale, a,nd on a large number of these sales respondent paid, granted or allowed, and is now paying, granting or allowing to these brokers and other direct buyers on their purchases, a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. PAR. 5. The acts and practices of respondent, as above alleged and described, are in violation of subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (V. C. title 15, Section 13). Mr. Oecil G. Miles and Mr. Ernest G. Barnes for the Commission. Mr. Z. D. Giles of Leesbnrg, Fla., for respondent. INITIAL DECISION BY EARL .J. KOLE , IIEAHING EXA:)IINER The complaint in this proceeding issued J Line 3, 1960, charges the respondent Marion County Citrus Company, a Florida corpora- MARIO!\ COUNTY CITRUS COMPANY 863 861 Order tion, located at ,Veirsdale, Florida, with violation of Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act, as amended, in connection with packing, selling and distributing citrus fruit or fruit products. After the issuance of the complaint\ respondent entered into an agreement containing consent order to cease and desist with counsel in support of the complaint, disposing of all the issues in this proceeding, which agreement was duly approved by the Director and Associate Director of the Bureau of Litigation. It was expressly provided in said agreement that the signing thereof is for settement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

By the terms of said agreement, the respondent admitted all the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint and agreed that the record herein may be taken a,s if the Commission had made findings of jurisdictional facts in acconlance with the allegations. By said agreement, the respondent expressly waived any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; the making of findings of fact or conclusions of law; and all the rights it may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with the agreement. Respondent further agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement, shall have the same force and effect as if made after a full hearing. It was further provided that said agreement, together with the complaint, shall constitute the entire record herein; that the complaint herein may be llsed in construing the terms of the order issued pursuant to said agreement; and that said order may be altered, modified or set aside in the manner prescribed by the statute for orders of the Commission.

The hearing examiner has considered such agreement and the order therein contained, and, it appearing that said agreement and order provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding, the same is hereby accepted and is ordered fied upon becoming part of the Commission s decision in accordance with Sections 3.21 and 3. of the Rules of Practice, and, in consonance with the terms of said agreement, the hearing examiner finds that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent named herein, and issues the following order: ORDER It i8 ordered That the respondent, Marion County Citrus Company, a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representatives, and 864 FEDBHAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Decision 58 F.

employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sa.le of citrus fruit or fruit products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Paying, granting, or allowing, directly or indirectly, to any buyer or to anyone acting for or in behalf of or who is subject to the direct or indirect control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in eonnectioll with any sale or citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his own account. DECISION OF THE CO)DIlSSTOX A XD ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COl\IPLIANCE The Commission having considered the hearing examiner s initial decision, filed on August 19 1060 accepting an agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, theretofore executed by the respondent and c.ounsel supporting the complaint; and It appearing that through inadvertence the ,YOI'd " " appears as the second word in the eighth line of the order to cease a,nel desist contained in the initial decision rather than the ,yord " as used in the consent order to cease and desist contained in the agreement; and The Commission being of the opImon that this departure from the order to cease ftnd desist agreed t.o by the parties should be corrected:

It is onl6l' That the initial decision of t.he hearing examiner be and it hereby is, modified by striking from the eighth line of the order to cease and desist contained in said initial decision the ,yord " ' as it appears immediately preceding the word "citrus and substituting thcrefOl the ,\ orcl "of" It is f1.ldhel' oTcleTed That the initial decision as 80 modified shall on the 19th day of J)Iay, 19G1, become the decision of the Commission. It ,is f'nl'heT ord6l' That the respondent :\farion County Citrus Company, a corporation, shall ,within sixty (GO) days acts:r service upon it. of this order, file with the Commission a report, in ',Titing, setting forth in detail the ll1anner and form in which it h:J$ complied "with the order to cease and desist contained.d in the aforesaid initial c1e,cision as modified.

;)() NELSON & COMPA , IKC. 865 8G.s Complaint Ix Tl-re l\UTTEH 01"

~ELSON & COMPANY, INC.

CONSEX'l ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (C) OF THE CI A YTOK ACT Docket 7932. Complaint, June 1960-Decision, May, 1961 Consent order requiring a citrus fruit packer in Oviedo, Fla., to cease violating Sec. 2(c) of the Clayton Act by paying brokerage, or its equivalent, to customers making purchases for their own accounts for resale. COMPLAINT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has been and is now violating the provisions of subsection (c) of Section 2 of thc Clayton Act, as amended (U. c. Title 15, Section 13), hereby issues its complaint stating its charges -with respect thereto as follmys: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent elson & Company, Inc. is a corporation organized, existjl1g and doing business under a.nd by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its office and principal place of business located at Oviedo, Florida, with mailing address as Post Offce Box 236, Oviedo, Florida.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for the past several years has been engaged in the business of packing, selling and distributing all ofcitrus fruit, such as oranges, tangerines and grflpefruit \which ftre hereinafter sometimes referred to as citrus fruits or fruit products. Respondent sells and distributes its citrus fruit through sections ofbrokers as IVell as direct to cllstomers located in many the United States. ,Vhen brokers ate utilized in making sales for , respondent pays them for their services a brokerage or commission, usually at the rate of 5 cents per unit, but in some instances brokerage, or commission is paid on a percentnge basis and va.ries from 5% to 10%. Respondent's annual volume of business in the sale and distribution of citrus fruit is substantial. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of its business over the past several years, respondent has sold and c1istribnted a,nel is no\y selling and distributing its citrus fruit in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, as amended, to buyers located in the 8m-eral states of the -United States other than the trans-State of Florida in -which respondent is located. R,esponclent 65.1-2.',- 5:J- 866 FEDERAL TRADE C01r IISSIO DECISIONS Decision 58 F.

ports or causes such citrus fruit, \yhen sold, to be transported from its place of business or packing plant in the State of Florida, or from other places within the state, to such buyers or to the bllyers customers located in various other states of the United States. Thus there has been at all times mentioned herein a continuous eou1'8C of trade in commerce in said citrus fruit across state Jines between said respondent and the respective buyers of such fruit. PAR. 4. In the course and conduct of its business as aforesaid respondent has made substantial sales of citrus fruit to some, but not a11, of its brokers and other direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resa, , ann on a large number of these sales respondent paid, granted or allo\yed, and is now paying, granting or allowing to these brokers and ot.her direct buyers on their purchases a commission, brokerage, or ot.her compensat.1on, or an allowance or discount in lieu thereof, in connection therewith. PAIL 5. The acts and practices of respondent as above alleged and described are in violation of subsection (1) of Section g of the Clayton Act, as amended (U. C. Title 15, Section 13). JlIr. Oecil G. Miles and il!'. Emc"t G. Banw", for the Commission, July. Roe H. Wi/kim of Orlando, Fla., for respondent. INITIAL DECISION BY EMIL J. KOLE, HE.\RUW EXA::IINER The complaint in this matter charges the respondent with violation of Section 2(c) of the Clayton Act, as amended. An agreement for disposition of the proceeding by means of a consent order has no",- been executed by respondent and its counsel and counsel supporting the complaint and submitted to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Attached,d to and made a part of the agreement is a stipulation entered into by the same parties for the purpose of making clear the intent of the complaint and the proposed order to cease and desist.

The agreement provides, among other things, that respondent admits a11 of the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint; that the record on which the initial decision and the c1edsion of the Commission shall be based shall consist solely of the complaint. and the agreement; that the inclusion of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decision disposing of this matter is waived, together with any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission; that the order hereinafter set forth may be entered in disposition of the proceedings, such order to have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing, respondent specifically waiving any and al1 rights to challenge or contest the vaJidit.y of such order; that the order may be altered, modifi€d or set aside in NBLSOX & COMPANY , INC. 867 865 Deeision the manner provided for other orders of the Commission; that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of the order; and that the agreement is for sett1emellt purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner having considered the agreement and the proposed order, and being of the opinion that they provide an adequate basis for appropriate disposition of the proceeding, the agreement is hereby accepted, the following jurisdictional findings made and the following order issued:

1. Respondent Nelson & Company, Inc. is a corporation existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its offce and principal place of business located in the City of Oviedo, State of Florida, with mailing address as Post Offce Box 236, Oviedo, Florida.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent. ORDER It is ordered That the respondent N e18011 & Company, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, agents, representatives and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of citrus fruit or fruit products in commerce, as "commerce is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

Paying, granting or allowing, directly or indirectly, to any buyer or to anyone acting for or in behalf of, or who is subject to the direct or indjrect control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, upon or in connection ,with any sale of citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his own acc.count. DECISION OF Tile co:\nnsslOX AND ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE The Commission having now determined that the hearing examiner s initial decision, filed January 25 , 1961, is adequate and appropriate to dispose of this proceeding:

It ordered That said decision be, and it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It further ordered That the respondent shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form jn which it has compJiecl with the order to ce,ase, and desist conta,inecl in the aforesaid initial clecjsjoll.

, 868 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIO Complaint 58 F.