Cubco, Inc
Volume 85 · 85 F.T.C. 896
Cite this decision
Cubco, Inc, 85 F.T.C. 896 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v085-0108
Report an error in this record (decision id v085-0108)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MA'IR OF CUBCO, INC., ET AL.
CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-2670. Complaint, May HJ75- Deci...ion, May, 1.f75 Consent order requiring a N utley, manufacturer and distributor of ski bindings and related items, among other things to cease anticompetitive practices having the effect of enforcing and fixing the dealers' resale prices for certain of respondents' products.
Appearances For the Commission: Davi W. DiNardi or the Respondents: Richard F. McMahon Lafferty, Rowe McMalwn, McKeon Newark, N.J.
COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Aet and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federa Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Cuoco, Inc., a corporation, and Mitchell H. Cubberley, individually and as an offieer of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated and are now violating the provisions of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Aet (38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U. C. 945), and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the pub lie interest, hereby issues its complaint, stating its charges with respect thereto as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Cubeo, Inc. is a eorpration organizd existing and doing business under and by virue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its office and principal place of business located on Baltimore St., Nutley, N.
Respondent Mitehell H. Cubberley is an offeer of the eorprate Complaint 85,' charges against them, we have concluded that said respondents are entitled to appointed counsel. Accordingly, It is ordered That the general counsel for the Commission take all necessar and appropriate measties to secure adequate leg'"l representation for the above-named respondents.
Commissioners Dixon and Thompson would have closed this matter for lack of public interest in furher proceedings.