Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.

Volume 139 · 139 F.T.C. 551

Citation: 139 F.T.C. 551
Decision: not printed in the source
Document type: interlocutory order
Case type: antitrust
Outcome: other
Relief: other
Order term (years): 2
Source: Original volume PDF
Original PDF: This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., 139 F.T.C. 551 (2005). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v139-0019

Report an error in this record (decision id v139-0019)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

58 F.T.C. 1184, pin 1188 — STEPHE F. SI"GER TRADIl'G AS STAR-CREST RECOIWING COMPAl'Y cited_neutral
90 F.T.C. 455, pin 456 — EXXON CORPORATION, ET AL. Doket 8934. Interlocutory Ordr. Nov. 10, 1977 cited_neutral
95 F.T.C. 352, pin 355 — ARTHUR MURRAY, INC., ET AL cited_neutral

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

IN THE MATTER OF CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF MATERIAL PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.45(b), Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (“CB&I” or “the Respondents”) have filed a Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Designated as Confidential (“the Motion”). The materials for which CB&I seeks in camera treatment consist of Attachment A to Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Respondents’ Petition to Reconsider (“the Opposition”) (Exhibit A of the Motion), related discussion on page 12 of the Opposition that was redacted from the public version of the Opposition, and portions of the Motion and Exhibit B of the Motion (Affidavit of Richard E. Goodrich). CB&I seeks in camera treatment of these materials for a period of five years. CB&I asserts that the material in question was previously submitted to the Commission’s staff and was designated highly confidential at that time. The Respondents claim that the material contains “highly confidential business information, the release or publication of which would substantially harm CB&I’s business.” Motion at 2. CB&I also maintains that it has endeavored to preserve the secrecy of this information. Complaint Counsel does not oppose Respondents’ motion.

The Commission finds that CB&I has satisfied the standard set forth in Commission Rule 3.45(b) and shown that the disclosure of the information for which it seeks in camera treatment would likely result in “clearly defined, serious injury.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). See H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188 (1961); Bristol-Myers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455, 456 (1977); General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352, 355 (1980). The Commission, VOLUME 139 Order however, is not persuaded that in camera treatment should be granted for the five-year period requested by CB&I. The information for which such treatment is being granted is temporal in nature, and its competitive sensitivity is likely to diminish over time. Accordingly, the Commission believes that a two-year period is appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (a) Exhibit A to the Motion and (b) those portions of the Motion, Exhibit B thereto, and the Opposition that were redacted in the public record shall be afforded in camera treatment for a period of two years from the date of this Order, at which time Respondents may show cause why those materials should not be made public. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. 553 Order

← 139 F.T.C. 544 · 139 F.T.C. 553 →