Arvida Fruit Co., Inc.

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

with the order to cease and desist.

THE JL\'later OF ARVIDA FRUIT CO. Iic.

COXSEXT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED YIOLATIOX OF SEC. 2 (c) OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 8000. Compla,int, June 27, 1960-Decision, May 19, 1961 Consent order requiring a citrus fruit packer in Ft. Pierce, 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 tho party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly described, has been and is now violating the provisions of subsection (e) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (D. C. Title 15, Section 13), hereby issues its complaint stating its charges with respect thereto as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Arvida Fruit Co., Inc. is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, with its oflee and principal place of business located at Ft. Pierce, Florida, with mailing address as P. 0, Box 70 , Ft. Pierce, Florida.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now, and for the past several years has been, engaged in the business of paeking, selling and distributing citrns fruit, such as oranges, tangerines and grapefruit, all of which are hereinafter sometimes referred to as citrus fruit or fruit products. Respondent sells and distributes its citrus fruit through brokers, a.s well as direct, to customers located in many sections of &, ARVIDA FR"CIT CO. , INC. 887 886 Dedsion the United States. 1Vhen hrokers are utilized in making sales for , respondent pays them for their services a commission or brokerage usually at the rate of 10 cents per 1% bushel box, or equivalent. R.esponclEmt:s annufll volume of business in the sale and distribution of citrus fruit is substantial.

m. 3. In the course and conduct of its business over the past seve.ral years, respondent has sold and distributed, a.nd is now selling and distributing, its citrlls fruit in commerce, as commerce is defined in the aforesaid Chlyton Act, as amended, to buyers located in the several Stat.es of the United States other than the State of Florida in which respondent is located. Respondent transports or c.auses such citrus frnit: whe,ll 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 Sllch buyers or t.o the buyers customers located in various other States of the United States. Thus, there has been at an times mentioned herein a continuous course. of trade in commerce.e in said citrus fruit across state lines between said responrle,nt and the respective buyers of such fruit. PAR. 4. In the course and ceJ1duet 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 other direct buyers purchasing for their own account for resale, and on a large number of these sales respondent paid, granted, or allowed, and is now paying, granting or allowing to these brokers and direct buyers on their own purchases, a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or an al10wanee 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 snbscction (c) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act, as amended (lis.C. Title 15, Section 13). Mr. Cecil G. Miles and MI'. Ernest O. Barnes snpporting the complaint.

Johnson Johnson of Tampa, Fla. for respondent. INITIAL DECISION OF J on r LEWIS HEARI!'W EXAMINER The Federal Trade Commission issued its complaint against the above-named respondent on tTune 27, 1960, charging it with having violated Section 2 (c) of the Clayton Act, as amended. After being served with said complaint, respondent entered into an agreement. dated December 13, 1D60 , containing a consent order to cease and desist purporting to dispose of all of this proceeding as to all parties, together with a sti pula tion making more specific the acts 888 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Decision 58 F, and practices complained of and the intent of the order. Said agreement, which has been signed by respondent, by counsel for said respondent and by counsel supporting the complaint, and approved by the Director and Associate Director of the Commission s Bureau of Litigation, has been submitted to the above-named hearing examiner for his consideration, in accordance with Section 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proceedings. Respondent, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, has admitted all the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and agreed that the record may be taken as if findings of jurisdictional facts had been duly made in accordance with such allegations. Said agreement further provides that respondent waives any further procedural steps before the hearing examiner and the Commission, the making of findings of fact or conclusions of Jaw and all of the rights it may have to challenge or contest the validity of the order to cease and desist entered in accordance with such agreement. It has been agreed that the order to cease and desist issued in accordance with said agreement shall have the same force and euect as if entered after a fuJl hearing and that the complaint may be used in construing the terms of said order. It has also been agreed that the record herein shall consist solely of the complaint and said agreement, and that sflid agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondent that it has violated the Jaw as alleged in the complaint.

This proceeding having now come on for final consideration on the complaint and the aforesaid agreement containing consent order together with the stipulation which has been made a part of said agreement, a,nel it appearing that the order provieled for in said agreement covers all of the allegations of the complaint and provides for an appropriate disposition of this proceeding as to all parties, said agreement is hereby accepteel and is ordered filed upon this decision s becoming the decision of the Commission pursuant to Sections 3.21 and 3.25 of the Commission s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative Proc.eedings, and the hearing examiner, accordingly, makes the follo\\'ing jurisdictional findings and order: 1. Respondent Arvic1a Fruit Co., Inc. is a corporation existing and doing business under and b ,r virtue of t,hr la"s of the State of Florida, with its offee find principal place of business located in the City of Ft. Pierce, State of Florida" with mailing address as Post Offce Box 70, Ft. Pierce, Florida.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of thc respondent hereimd)ove BABIJ1ICE CORPORATIO OF FLORIDA 889 886 Syllabus named. The complaint states a cause of action against said respondent under t.he provisions of the Clayton Act. ORDER It ;S ordered That the respondent Arvida Fruit Co., 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 indirect control of such buyer, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in heu thereof, upon or in connection with any sale of citrus fruit or fruit products to such buyer for his own account. DECISION OH THE CO IMJSSlO:X _\xn ORDER TO FILE REPORT OF CO:1fPLIANCE The Commission hnying now determined that t118 hearing examine1' 8 initial decision: filed Tanuary :31 , 1861 , is adequate and appropriate to dispose. of this proceeding:

It ;8 ordered t said decision be. aud it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is furthei' o)'del' That the respondent shad, within sixty (60) days after service upon it. of this order, Lile with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in deblil the manner and form in which it has camphell with the. order to cease and desist contained in the aforesaid initial decision.