Kraftco Corporation
Volume 88 · 88 F.T.C. 912
Cite this decision
Kraftco Corporation, 88 F.T.C. 912 (1976). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v088-0091
Report an error in this record (decision id v088-0091)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
In THE MATTER OF KRAFTCGO CORPORATION, ET AL.
Docket 9035. Interlocutory Order, Dec. 8, 1976 Commission directs parties to submit memoranda responding to relative merits of ALJ’s proposed order and the consent order in IBM case, File 761 0063. Appearances For the Commission: Ronald A. Bloch, Clinton R. Batterton, and Joseph Tasker, Jr.
For the respondents: David C. Bogan and C. Lee Cook, Jv., Chadwell, Keyser, Ruggles, McGee & Hastings, Chicago, Ill.; Howard Hoosin and William G. Taffe, Glenview, Ill; William E. Wallis, Sullivan & Cromavell, New York City; and Frederic L. Ballard, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa.
ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL BRIEFING The Commission recently accepted and placed upon the public record for comment a consent order against International Business Machines Corporation, File No. 761 0068, pertaining to an allegedly unlawful interlocking directorate. At oral argument in Dkt. 9085 counsel were invited to comment upon the IBM order, but the necessity and purpose of such comment were left subject to question. The Commission desires the views of the parties in this matter concerning the following: Assuming arguendo that the Commission finds that SCM has violated the law and that a remedial order is deemed appropriate, is the remedial approach taken in the IBM consent order preferable (and in what respects and why) to the order recommended in this case by the administrative law judge? Receipt of the views of respondent SCM will, of course, by without prejudice to the position expressed in its brief that the consent order signed by respondent Kraftco is the appropriate one, but the Commission seeks the views of respondent as to the relative merits of the ALJ’s proposed order and the IBM order. Therefore, It is ordered, That within fifteen days from receipt of this order, the parties shall submit memoranda in response to the above-mentioned question.
COMMERCIAL PROGRAMMING UNLIMITED, INC., ET AL. 918 918 Complaint