Papercraft Corporation

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

In THe Marter oF THE PAPERCRAFT CORPORATION MODIFIED ORDER IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT Docket 8779. Complaint, Apr. 10, 1969’—AModified Order Sept. 9, 1971 Order granting respondent’s petition for leave to file a further statement; denying in other respects the petition for reconsideration; denying the petition for reopening and for stay of the effective date of the final order of June 30, 1971; and modifying Paragraph TX of the Commission’s final order of June 30, 1971, 78 F.'T.C. 1352.

Orprer oF THE Commission Rutinc on Responpent’s PretTirions ror RECONSIDERATION, REOPENING, STAY oF Finat Orver, ANd Prrrrion FOR LEAVE Respondent Papercraft Corporation having filed on August 12, 1971, a Petition for Reconsideration of Paragraph LX of the Commission’s final order of June 30, 1971 [78 F.T.C. 1852], or for Reopening under Sections 3.55, 3.71, and 8.72 of the Commission’s rules, and fora Stay of the effective date of that final order under Section 3.55; and counsel supporting the complaint having filed its Opposition thereto on August 20, 1971; and respondent Papercraft Corporation 1 Reported as amended by Hearing Examiner’s order of September 9, 1969, by amending the introductory portion of Paragraph 16, 78 F.T.C. 1352, 1355. 420 u Order having filed on September 2,.1971, a Petition for Leave to file a further pleading in this proceeding; and counsel supporting the complaint having filed its Opposition thereto on September 8, 1971; and The Commission having determined that respondent’s Petition for Leave should be granted and having considered the contents of said further pleading; and The Commission having determined that respondent’s Petition for Reconsideration is addressed solely to a question that was presented in complaint counsel’s Proposed Findings of Fact of May 12, 1970 (pp. 60 and 69), and ruled upon by the hearing examiner in his initial decision of July 27, 1970, is not “confined to new questions raised by the decision or final order of the Commission” in its decision or order of June 30, 1971, as required by Section 3.55 of the Commission’s rules and ther efore should be denied; and The Commission having determined that respondent’s Petition for Reopening and for a Stay « of the effective date of the final order should be denied; and The Commission having determined that Paragraph IX of its order of June 30, 1971, should be revised to make clear that it applies to direct customer accounts of CPS Industries, Inc., and should be modified to apply only to customers sold by CPS during a two (2) year period preceding the acquisition of December 27, 1967, and until divestiture hereunder ;

Now therefore, i is ordered, That Papercraft’s Petition for Leave to file a further statement be, and it hereby is, granted ; It is further ordered, That Paragraph CX of the Commission’s final order of June 80, 1971 [78 F.T.C. 1352, 1396], be, and it hereby is, modified to read as follows:

It is further ordered, That for a period of three (3) years from the date of divestiture the Papercraft Corporation is prohibited from selling any decorative giftwrap products to any direct customer account of CPS Industries, Inc., which at any time during the two (2) years preceding December 27, 1967, and until divestiture is effected hereunder, has been sold any decorative giftwrap products by CPS Industries, Inc., unless such customer account was sold such decorative giftwrap products by the Papercraft Corporation prior to December 27, 1967.

It is further ordered, That respondent’s Petition for Reconsideration be, and it hereby is, otherwise denied; and Itis ‘further ordered, That respondent’s Petition for Reopening and for Stay of the effective date of the Commission’s final order of June 30, 1971, be, and they hereby are, denied. . Complaint TD WAG.