American Brands, Inc

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

Standard’s constitutional tights to equal protection under the law.

Standard’s (and B.B.D. & 0s by adoption) factual basis to support its motion consists mainly of its references to the alleged prethe complaint and that therefore it should be withdrawn. We believe that the only Proper way to decide such an issue is by a full trial on the merits. This proceeding, as al] Commission proceedings, will be conducted according to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and the Administrative Procedure Act, Standard and B.B.D. & O. are thus assured of a full and fair hearing on the charges against them. To examine the merits at this time, or to attempt to do so, would be an irregularity completely unjustified by the circumstances shown. Thus, so far as respondents request a reconsideration of the Commission’s _basis for the issuance of the complaint and the withdrawal thereof, their motions will be denied.

It is not believed that oral argument before the Commission on the matters raised would serve any useful purpose in the circumstances so those requests will likewise be denied. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the motions of Standard Oi] Company of Callifornia and Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn, Inc., for reconsideration and disqualification, filed respectively March 16, 1971 and March 17, 1971, be, and they hereby are, denied. , It is further ordered, That respondents’ respective requests for tle opportunity to appear and argue their position orally before the Commission be, and they hereby are, denied. Chairman Kirkpatrick not participating.

AMERICAN BRANDS, INC.

Docket 8799, Order, April 14, 1971 Order granting motion requesting permission to file a consent agreement on a . non-public basis and holding in abeyance motion to withdraw from adjudication.

Orvrr Granting Morton Reqursting Permission To Fire A Consent AGREEMENT on A Nownrvstic Basts AND Hoxprtne In AxBryancr Motion To Wrrupraw From ADJUDICATION Pursuant to Section 2.34(d) The hearing examiner in this matter having certified to the Commission on February 12, 1971, a joint motion of counsel in support of - -agsist the Commission. i 2 the complaint and dounsel for respondent requesting perm agreement ‘with the Cc na ‘nonpubli basis a jol draw this matter. from sdiudication pursua ~ Rule 2.34(d) 7 ea _ The: Commi or. - respondent | and coun el n de iding * awh:

from adjudication: ee It is ordered, That. the motion ee perm - sent agreement.’ with the ( Commis “hereby is; granted; sand...

“Itis further: ordered, That the m “tion ‘be held in abeyance until such time as the Commission - has examined the consent serene executed bye counsel. ae woke ee nd. be _ UNION “CARBIDE CORPORATION Docket gsit. _ order, April: 20, 191 on otion to 2 aw from dion ae : “order denying request for leave. to ‘file interlocutory appeal and rescheduling: : Sea the evidentiary. earings: | jin hopes: that, asa courtesy to: the: @court,. Such extension | of:time may- facilitate t the expeditions, conclusion of the, collater) ‘suit in the: district court. : : :

ces nour. Rescrmponove Tran ‘Dare | ‘AND Denvine ‘Reowssr To Fo eed ITERLOCUTORY AprraL ee. This matter is before the Commission upon respondent’s ‘request: : ; S : filed April 16, 1971, for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the -— ce hearing examiner's order denying its request to reschedule the hearings Ae and upon its further. request for an order postponing the hoa in this proceeding now’ set for May 10, 1971. . . oe ; ‘Respondent asserts, ‘inter alia, ‘that it filed, ‘on Ap rill 8, 4971, in. the - US. District Court. for. the District of Columbia. (Union. Carbide Le Corporation v. Federal Trade. Commission, Civil Action No. 714-7 1) Be complaint. praying for. declaratory ’ and injunctive relief i in: -connee- aS _. tion with the hearing examiner’s order. denying 3 its motion f yrsum= mary decision and related rulings. It states that: on. “April 9, O71, ib ~~ moved the hearing examiner to reschedule the. trial date from. May: 10, 4971, to J uly. 12, 197 1, in view of the complaint so. filed and that the: a hearing: examiner denied the request. Respondent. claims: that the ~ Se hearing ‘should be postponed as a courtesy to. the court. and to permit Se ~~ the court:to. determine respondent’s. legal rights, asking that the he paper ee it. filed be ‘considered ® as its brief in sopROr of it its s Teaiertes ages