Mid. America Food Service, Inc.

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

Ix THE MATTER OF MID. AMERICA FOOD SERVICE, INC., ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER , ETC. , IX REGARD TO Tile ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE :FEDERAL TR--IDE C03-pnSSION ACT Docket C- t08. Compla.int, Feb. 1964-Decision, Feb. "i, 196- Consent order requiring River Forest, Ill., distributors of freezers anti foods by means of a so-called "freezer-food plan, to cease making a variety of false representations concerning their time in business, o,vnersbip of their O\vn food processing plants, size and manner of operations, guarantees, prices, terms and conditions of sale, among other false daims as in the order below.

CO:;\IPL--'XT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by saiel Act, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that. I1c1-America Food Service, Inc. , a corporation, and Leonard A. Ferrara. , individual.lly and as rul oilcer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, hll\ e ,-ioInted the pm-isions of said _Act, and .it appearing to the Commission that a. proceeding' by it. in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint, stathg its charges in that respect as follo\ys:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent :Mid- \.america Food Service, Inc. , is a corporation orga.nized, existing and doing business under and by vi1'- 24-0G9--70---5 , 698 Federal TRADE CO:\L\IISSION DECISIONS Complaint 64 F. T.

tue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal offce and place of business located at 7353 Xorth Avenue, H.iyer Forest, 111i- 11018.

Respondent Leonard ..A.. Ferrara is the president and chief executive offcer of the corporate respondent: and he formulates, directs and controls the acts and practices hereinafter set :forth. .His Lmsiness address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. His home address is 7820 Chicago Avenue, R.iver Forest, Illinois. PAR. 2. Respondents are now and for some time last past, have been engaged in the advertising, offering for sale and distribution of freezer,s and foods by means of fl. so-called ;;freezcr-food plan. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, at all times mentioned herein, respondents have been in substantial competition in commel'ce with corporations, firms, and indi vidua.1s in the sale of freezers, food, and 1'reoze1'- food plans. r AR. 4. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents have disseminated, and caused the dissemination of, certain adr-ertisements by the 'Cnited States Juails and by various means in commerce as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, including but not limiterl to ad r-ertisements inserted in newsp:1per:; of exte,nsive interstate ciJ'culation, brochures and circulars, for the pu)'pose of inducing, and which we.re likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food, as the term " fooeP' is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act; a,nd h:1V8 dissen1inated, and caused the dissemination of advert.isements by various means including those aforesaid, for the purpose of inducing, and which \were likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of food and freezers in C01nme.rce, as ;;c01111e1'ce " is defined in the Federal Trade Commi.,:sion Act.

PAR. 5. By nleans of advertisements disseminated, as aforesaid and by the oral staten1ents of sales representatives, respondents have repre sented, direeny or by implication:

1. That respondents have been in the freezer food business since 1957.

:t. That respondents O\vn and operate their own food processing pia,nts in R.ivel' Forest, Illinois or in any other locatjon. 3. That respondents serve over three million satisfied families. 4. That respondents sell only food and do not sell freezers. i1. That the freezcrs and the food are fully and unconditionally guaranteed or insured under the contract.

G. That purchasers can enter respondents' freezer- food plan on a trial basis.

7. That respondents sell their food at wholesale' prices. :\lid-A:\1ERICA FOOD SEHYICE , JKC. , ET AL. 699 (i!)'i Complaint 8. That respondents -will permit purchasers of a food plan to have the free use of a freezer.

9. That a purchaser of respondents: food who remains in the foodfreezer plan for two years will automatically become the owner of a freezer without charge.

10. That the initial food order supplied by respondents will last the purchaser for four months.

11. That purehasers can cancel respondents' contract at any tinw without penalty or additional charge.

12. That substantially all major brands of food products arc ava-jJtable under respondents' freezer- food plan. 13. That plmchasers of or subscribers to respondents' freezer- food plan will receive all their food requirements and t freezer for the same or less money than they have been paying for food alone. 14. That insbtllment contracts for the purchase of rcspOndel\ts freezer-food plan, freezers, or food ,Ire I-inanced or carried b ' 1'espondEmts and arc not c1isconntecl to others. 15. That, respondents do not charge a. ::melnbership fee. 16. That mea.t prices quoted by respondents' salesmen to purchasers arc net ,yeight prices.

17. That respondents quoi-ed prices for me;tts and frozen foods win remain const.ant throughout. the time purchasers remain fl. member of the food freezer plan.

18. That respondents: operation is national in scope. 19. That there are no finance charges on purchasers' food orders. 20. That food spoilage insurance is furnished free of charge. 21. That a deposit of $2;) or other stated alnonnts paid by pllrchnse.rs subscribing to the freezer-food plan is to be applied all the llitial food order.

PAR. 6. In truth and in fact:

1, Respondents have not been in the freezer-food business Sl1CC 1957.

2. Respondents do not o\\n or operate their o n 1'00(1 processing plants II River Forest or in any other location. 8. Respondents c10 not serve over three million satisfied families. J. Hespondents se 11 food and freezers.

3. Respondents: freezers and food are not f1111y and 1 llCOlHliti onally gUfll'Rntecd or illsnrec1 under the contract. (1. Purchasers canllot enter the food-freezer p18n on a trial hlSis. 7. Respondents do not: sell their food at ,yh01esaJc prices. R. Purchasers of a freezer- food plan from respondents do not have the free llse of a freezer, 1mI-. are in fact required to purchase said freezer.

, 700 FEDERAL TRADE CO:-BnSSION DECISIONS Complaint 64 F.

U. A purchaser of respondents' food ,,' 110 remains in the food. freezer plan for two years does not automatieally become the owner of a freezer without charge.

10. The initial food order supplied by respondents is not snffclent to last purchasers for four months.

11. Purchasers cannot cancel respondents: contracts at any time without pena.lty or liquidated damages.

12. Not all nor substantially all nmjor brands of food products are "yailable under the food plan.

13. Purchasers of or subscribers to respondents' freezer- food plan do not receive all their food requirements and a freezer for the same or less money than they have been paying for food alone. 14-. In many instances, the contracts of purchasers of or subscribers to respondents' freezer food plans are not financed by respondent bnt are. Hnanced through a financial institution. 15. Respondents do charge a membership fec. IG. That quoted prices for respondents' Ineats are gross weight pnces.

17. Hespondents' quoted prices for their meats and frozen food do not remain constant throughout the time a purchaser remains a member of the food. freezer plan.

18. Respondents' operation is not national in scope. 19. Purchasers are required to pay finance charges on their food orders.

20. The food spoilage insurance is not furnished free of charge. 21. A deposit of $25 or other stated amounts paid by purchasers subscribing to the freezer. food plan is not applied on the initial food order, but is actually a down payment on the freezer-food plan. Therefore, the advertisements referred to in Paragraph Four were and are InisIeading in material respects and constituted, and nmy constitute "false advertisements" as that term is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act a,nd the statements and representations referred to in Paragraph Five "ere and now' are fa.1e, misleading, and deceptive.

-\l:. 7. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and deceptive statements, representations find pradices hits had and now has, the capacity and tendency to mislead nlembers of the purchasing pllb1ic into the. e.rroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations v,ere and are true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of freezers, food, and freezer-food plans from respondents by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

:\IID-AMERICA FOOD SERVICE, INC. , ET AL. 701 GO, Deci i()n ;lJH1 Ol'd m. 8. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, including t.he dissemination by respondents of false advertisements as aforesaid, were, and are, all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and const.itnted, ancl now constitute, unfair methods of competition in commerce and nnfair and deceptive acts and practjces, in commerce within the intent and meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of said Act.

DECISIO::r AXD ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the re.spondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Decepti,.c Practices proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesa.id draft of complaint, a state,ment that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law has been "iolatcd as alleged in sneh complaint, and "waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, having reason to believe that the respondents have violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, and having determined that complaint should issue stating its charges in that re.spect, hereby issues its complaint, accepts saiel agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings ancl enters the following order: 1. Respondent Iid-America Food Service, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, with its offce and principal place of business located at 7353 North Avenue, Ri"er Forest, Illinois. Respondent, Leonard A. Ferrara, is the chief exe,cutive offcer of proposed corporate respondent and his business address is the same as the corporate a,c1drcss of \rid-America Food Service" Inc. His home address is 7820 Chicago Avenue, River Forest, Illinois. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceed. ing is in the public interest.

702 FEDERAL TRADE COl.Jl\llSSION DECISIONS Deci:,ion nncl Order 64 F. T. ORDER \RT I It is ordered That proposed respondents, Jlicl-Amerira Food Serve ice, Inc. , a.nd Leonard A. Ferrara, individually and as an offcer of tid corporation, and proposed re pondents: representati,- , agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other elm-ice in or in connection "iih the advertising, oflering for sale, sale or distribution of freezers, food 01' freezer- food plans 01' other merchandise, in commerce as "commerce, : is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, do forthwith cease and desist from: R.cpl'escnting directly or by implication that: (a) Proposed respondents have been in the freezer. food business since 1957 or for any other length of time not in accordance with the facts;

(b) Proposed respondents O"yn and operate their own food processing plants in Rh-er Forest, Illinois, or in ot.her locat.ions;

(c) Proposed respondents serve over OOO OOO satisfied families or any other nnrnber of fami.1-ps when ll('h i:; not in aecorda-nee wi.th the facts:

(cl) Proposed respondents sell only food and do not seJ! freezers:

(e) Freezers 01' parts thereof or foods are unconditionally guaranteed or a.re guaranteed in any manner unless the nature and extent of the guarantee and the manner in which the guarantor will perform thereunder are clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

(f) Purchasers can enter proposed respondents ' freezerfood plan on a trial basis;

(g) Proposed respondents sell their food at wholesale prices;

(h) Proposed respondents wijJ permit purchasers of a :food plan to hm-e the free use of a. freezer; (i) A purchaser of proposed respondents' food who remains in the food- freezer plan for hyo years will automatically become the O\yner of a freezer without charge; (j) The initial food ordered by a purchaser will be suf. ficient to last such purchaser any stated or specified period of time;

(k) Purchasers call callcel proposed respondents' contract at. any time without penalty or additional charge; MID-AMERICA FOOD SERVICE ! INC. ) E'l AL. 703 687 DC'dsion and Orflf'l' (I) Substantially all major brands of food products are available under proposed respondents' freezer- food plan; (m) Purchasers of or subscribers to proposed respond. ents' freezer- food plan "",, ill receive all their food requireme,nts and a freezer for the same or less money than they have been paying for food alone;

(n) Installment contracts for the purchase of proposed respondents ' freezer-food plan, freezers, or food, are financed or carried by proposed respondents and are not cliscOllute,d to others;

(0) Proposed respondents do not charge a membership fee;

(p) )Ieat prices quo led by proposed respondents ' sales. 1nen to purchasers are the net weight prices if such is not in accordance with the facts;

(q) Proposed respondents' quoted prices for meats and frozen foods win rem tin constant throughout the time purchasers rema.in a member of the food-freezer plan; (1') Proposed respondents ' operation is na60nal in scope; (s) Purcha,sers' food orders do not entail finance charges; (t) Food spoilage insurance is furnished free of charge; (u) A deposit of $25 or any other stated amount paid by purchasers subscribing to the freezer-food plan is to be applied on the initial food order.

rART II It f!t'thel' o1'dered That respondents ;\Iid.America Food Serv ice, Inc., a corporation, and its offcers, and Leonard A. Ferrara, individually and as an offcer of said corporation, ancl respondents agents, representat.ives, and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device in or in connection with the oHeri ng lor s:lle" sale or distribution of any food or purchasing phn in,-ol\'ing fooel do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Disseminating or causing to he disseminated any ad\'erti inent by means of the -Cnit-ed States mails or uy any means in conID1erce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Comlnission Act, which advertisement contains nny representat.ion or misrepresentation prohibited in paragraph rL throllgh 11 of PART I of this order.

2. Disseminating or causing the dissemination of any advertisement by any means for the purpose of inducing 01' I,-which Complaint 64 F.

is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase of any food, or any purchasing plan involving food in commerce, as commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act which advertisement cont.ains any of the representations or 11i8. representations prohibited in Paragraphs (a) through (u) of PART I of this order.

It is f1l"the7' orde7wl That the respondents herein shan, "within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file "ith the U0111mission a report in writing setting fortIl in detail the manner and form in "which they have complied with this order. Ix THE j\fA TTER OF BIGELOW.SAKFOlW CARPET COMPANY, INC.

CDNSEXT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 (a) OF THE CL\YTO ACT JJoakct (" po. Compla.int, Feb. 1959 Decision, Feb. 10 , 1964. Consent order requiring manufacturers of rugs and carpets, with plants in a number of Eastern States, to cease discriminating in price among retailers who compete in resellng its rugs and carpets by means of its annual cumulative quantity discount system, in violation of Sec. 2(a) of the Clayton Act.

COl\fPLAIXT The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to belief( that the party respondent named in the caption hereof, and hereinafter more particularly designated and described, has violated and is now yio. lating the provisions of subscction (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act (D. S.C. Title 15 , Section 13), as amended by the Robinson. Patman Act, approved Juno 19, 1936, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges "ith respect thereto as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent, Bigelow. Sanford Carpet Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Dela"are, with its principal offce located at 140 Madison A venue in the city of 1\ e" York, State of New York.

PAR. 2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale and clistribution of rugs and carpets under two distinct product lines, Bigelow Rugs and Carpets and Sanford Carpets. Respondent is a sub. stantial factor in the carpet industry with a sales volume in 195T _____ _.. .. ..

BIGELOViT-SANFORD CARPET CO. , I:KC. 705 704 Complaint excess of $74 000 000 and manufacturing plants located in Amster. dam Ncw York, Bristol, Virginia, Landrum, South Carolina, Sum. mervile, Georgia and Thompsonvile, Connecticut. PAR. 3. In the. course and conduct of its business respondent now causes, and for some time la.st past has ca.used its rugs and carpets when sold for use, consumption, or resale, to be shipped from its manufacturing plants in the aforesaid States to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and maintains a substantialand at all times mentioned herein has maintained, course of trade in said rugs and carpets in commerce as " commerce is defined in the aforesaid Clayton Act.

P A11 4. Respondent in thc course and conduct of its business, has discriminated in price between different purchasers of its rugs and carpets of like grade and quality, by selling said products at higher and less favorable net purchase prices to some purchasers than the same 1re sold to other purchasers who have been and are in competition with the fa vored purchasers.

s dis. PAR. 5. The following example is illustrative of respondent' criminatory pricing practices.

Respondent now has, and for the past several years has had in effect, an annual cumulative quantity discount system ranging from one to five percent, based on the annual net billngs of rugs and carpets of its Bigelow Rugs and Carpets line, as follows: Discount cent)Ajl!lwl purohases (pel'----- 0Up to $4 999- 000 to $14.999_ ----- 1 $15 000 to $24 999______ ----- 1'/ $25 000 to $34 999- ----- 2 $35. 000 to $.! 999------- ------ 2'/ - un - -- -- -- -$45,00 to $59 999 ----- - - - - -- _u - - - - _u - 31j::$60 000 to 874 999-- -_u $75 000 to $89 999- ---.- - - 4 $90 000 to $104 999--- ----- 4'/ O'er $105.000- Respondent's aforedescribed annual cumulat.ive quantity discount s:r t('m results in discriminatory net sales prices as between competith-e purchasers in the diffe.rent volume and discount brackets of said schedule. Purchasers of respondent's products for competitive resale unable to reach an annual purchase yolume of $5 000: for example, receive no volume discounts on their purchases and thus have a significant. bllying price disadvantage.

706 FEDERAL TRADE CQ:\L\IISSIQ:- DECISIONS Complaint OJ F.

:.loreove.r, the competitive effect of the resulting net price differences becomes even more apparent in connection ,yitli respondents application or the above discount schedule to chain stores such as, for example, The Jhy Department Stores Company and lliec1 Stores Corporation.

H.cspondent allows said cha.in purchasers to combine the purchase volume or their various outlets so as to flnalify for the maximum :5S, discount allowed. In 111any instances the purchase vohnnes or the chifercnt individual stores or the chain are Hot suffcient to "warrant (ln discount at an, but because or the policy of the respondent in granting the rate or discount on the combined purchase volumcs or a11 the chain outlets, ea,ch individual store is allowed the maxinllun discount of 5';.

For example, in 1955 total net purchases from respondent by the Allied clulin "ere $824 431 on "which a rebate of $41 221 , calculated at 5% was paid. Individually, 15 or the 44 stores participating failed to qualify for any rebate, 13 qualified for a rebate of only lo/ ilnd none of the individual stores qualified for the maximum 5% rebate which was a.allowed to all the participating stores in the Allied chain. In the same year the net purchases by The J\Iay Department Store from respondent were $595 622 on ,which a 5yo rebate of ';:2D 781 \Y(1 paid. Based on their individual purchase volumes only three of the :111participnJing stores qualified for the 5% maximum rebate ,vhieh were allowed.

In many imotances respondents non-chain customers are purchasing -individually from respondent in cons1c1e.rably greater volume than the individual.l chain store with whom they compete, a,nfl, in 20 doing receive either no discount, or at best a low bracket discount corresponding with their a,dual volume or purchases, while the C011petitiyc individual cha,in store is allowed the ma.ximum discount of 5%. The products sold under respondenes different product lines are of like grade and quality in its respect.ive line, and these independent non-chain customers purchase the same gntde and quality of merchandise from respondent as do its chain store customers. In lTlallY instances the individual chain store,s and the, independently owned stores are, locate(l in the same city 01' metropolitan area HI1(l bot.h the c.chain and noll-chain stores arc in aeti ve ancl constant competition with and among' and bet,yee, n each other for the consumer t.racle. pec.ific illustrations of representative. net price differences occasioned beli\een the said favored and non-favored competing C1.S- _ ( ) BIGELO\V-SA FOHD CARPET CO,) I 707 704 Comvlaint tomeI'S on commodities of like grade a.nd quality sold by respondent in eommerc.e during 195;') are as follows: I ' i Percent of T ---"bl1tc Custo:ncr I'UIChas I ,OllJl::e rebate Baltimore tradcc area:

The :'day Co- - - 024 32 I 3;);")1. 22 I I $11 Hllt.zler Brotlwl's, Inl' - 2G, 924. 60 ;)38. 49 :.Icj)o,ycll & Co- I 11.407. 141 114. 07 I Bln/1 , Iuc-- - \ 5, 408. 41 I ;)4. as Akron trade area:

::1'1. O' cil Co. (:f.ay)- , 97 047. , 807. 37 A. Pobky (Allicd)-- 11.5. 680. 44 , 284. 47 Yeager Co_ I lO O::m.;)() 1 100. 4C1 I H. .:-1 StOllg:L_--_ ': OIH' 1 1 Un.dor85 000.

PAR. 6. The eficct of the discriminations in price by respondent a.s hereinbefore set forth Inay be substantially to lessen competition in the lines of commerce in \'- which the purehasers receiving a.nd those denied the benefits of the more favorable prices are engaged, and to injure, destroy or prevent compcUtion between purchasers receiving the benefit of saiel more favorable prices, and the purchasers from whom such more fnxorable prices are withheld. PAR. 7. The aforesaid eliscriminat.ions in price by respondent as hereinabove alleged and described constitute violations of subse.c.ion (a) of section 2 of the aforesaid CJaJ'ton Act as amended. Mr. Eldon P. Schmp and Aft. Robert O. Cntle,' for the Commis. Slon.

Cahil, 001'don, Reindel Old bJ' Mr. Jerrold G. Yan Cise New York for respondent.

IXl'l'IAL DECISION BY "\Y ALTER H. . OHN"SOX, HR.oRIXG E)VnII In the complaint dated February 26 , 1950 , the respondent is charged with violating the provisions of subsection (a) of section 2 of the Clavton Act. as amended.

On :\Iarch " 2, 1960, tJw respondent and its attorney entered into an agreement with counsel snpporting the complaint for a consent order.

ndel" the foregoing agreement, the respondent admits the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint.. The parties agree, among other things, that the cease and dcsjst order there set forth ma.y be 708 FEDERAL 'frade CQlIJ.lISSroX DECISIQXS Complaint 64 F.

entered without further notice and have. the, same force and effect as if ent.ered after a full hearing and the document includes a \vajyel' by the respondent of aU rights to c.challenge or contest. the ntlidity of the order issuing in accordance there\\ith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes only Hnd does not constitute an admission by the respondent that it has violated the Jaw as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner finds that. the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of section 3.2;") (b) of the l l1Jes of the Commission.

This agreement is entered into subject to the condition that the initial decision based thereon shad be stayed by the COJlmission and shan not become the decision of the Conllnission unless and until the Commission disposes of Docket Xos. 7421 , 7631 , 7632, 7633 , 7634 7635. 7636, 7637, 7638 , 7639 and 7640, by orders to cease and desist in substantially the same form as set forth herein, or by other appro. priate order to cease and desist or of dismissal The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement and the proposed order provide an a.appropriate basis for disposition of this proceeding as to all of the parties, the. agreement is hereby accepted and it is ordered that the agreement. shall not. become a part of the offcial record of the proceeding unless and until it becomes a part of the decision of the Commission. The following jurisdictional iindings are made and the following order issued. 1. Respondent Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Company, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with its offce and principal place of business located at 140 Iadison AVenlH', Xe,y York Yark.

2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent. ORDER It I; O'ide1' erl That respondent Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Company, Inc., a corporation, its offcers agents, representatives and employees directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the sale of rugs and carpet.s in commerce, as "commerce: is defined in t.he Clayton Act, do forthwith cease and desist from: Discriminating, directly or indirectly, by CUlTl1lat1ve volume discount or otherwise, in the price of rugs and Cfirpets of like grade and quality, by selling to any purchaser fit net prices lo\\er than the net price charged any other purehflser competing in :\lOHASCO I::DUSTHIES ! INC. 709 i04 Syllabus fact with such favored purchase.r in the resale and distribution of such rl1gs and carpets.

For the purpose of determining "net price" under' the terms of this order, there shall be taken into account discounts, rebates, allo"ances, deductions or other terms and conditions of sale by which net prices are effected, FrXAL ORDER The Commission, by order issued August 19, 1960, having extended until further order of the Commission the time within which the initial decision of the hearing examiner would otherwise become the decision of the Commission, pursuant to certain conditions contained in paragraph 8 of the consent agreement to cease and desist; and The Commission having determined that the aforesaid conditions have been fulfilled and that the initial decision of the hearing ex. aminer' is appropriate in an respects to cbspose of this proceeding: 1 t is ordered That the initial decision of the hearing examiner, fiJccl July 25 , 1960 , be, and it hereby is, adopted as the decision of the Commission.

It is fUTtM1' o?Yleo' That the above.named respondent shan within sixty (60) days after the expiration of time allowed for ftling a petition for revimv, if no suell petition has been duly filed within such time by respondents in Docket 7634, Docket 7635 or Docket 7639, file with the Commission a report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has compiled "ith the order to cease and desist.

I t is further ordep,Cd That i.f petition for review is duly fied in Docket 7634, Docket 7635 or Docket 7639, then the time for ftling a report of compliance shall begin to run de novo frolll the latest date. of any final judicial determinat.ion in any such appellate review.