federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6255TRANSACTIONS GRANTED EARLY TERMINATION BETWEEN: 012097 AND 013197—ContinuedName of acquiring person; name of acquired person; name of acquired entityPMN No.Date terminatedMr. Steven P. Jobs, Apple Computer, Inc., Apple Computer, Inc., ......................................................................... 97–1011 01/28/97Apple Computer, Inc., Steven P. Jobs, NeXT Software, Inc. .................................................................................. 97–1012 01/28/97Code, Hennessy & Simmons II, L.P., Rand McNally & Company, DocuSystems Division .................................... 97–1020 01/28/97Leonard Riggio, Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble, Inc. ................................................................................. 97–1029 01/28/97Potomac Electric Power Company, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, 1Baltimore Gas and Electric Company...................................................................................................................................................................... 96–1879 01/29/97Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Potomac Electric Power Company, Potomac Electric Power Company ... 96–1880 01/29/97Tenet Healthcare Corporation, OrNda Healthcorp., OrNda Healthcorp. ................................................................. 97–0309 01/29/97Evening Post Publishing Company, Post Publishing Company, Post Publishing Company .................................. 97–0969 01/30/97William L. Sauder, Ronald Cholette, Can-Am Millwork, Ltd. ................................................................................... 97–0987 01/30/97Paul Goldner, American Business Information, Inc., American Business Information, Inc. ................................... 97–1000 01/30/97Broderbund Software, Inc., Advanced Voting Trust, of Samuel I. Newhouse, Living Books ................................. 97–1007 01/30/97BankAmerica Corporation, Homeside, Inc., Honolulu Mortgage Company ............................................................ 97–1017 01/30/97United Auto Group, Inc., Kevin J. Coffey, Crown Jeep Eagle, Inc. ........................................................................ 97–1024 01/30/97Automatic Data Processing, Inc., HealthPlan Services Corporation, HealthPlan Services Corporation ................ 97–1027 01/30/97Payless ShoeSource, Inc., J. Baker, Inc., JBI, Inc., Parade of Shoes Division ...................................................... 97–1042 01/30/97Philip Environmental Inc., Gil Mains, Sr., RMF Global, Inc. .................................................................................... 97–0982 01/31/97Primark Corporation, Information Partners Capital Fund, LP, WEFA Holdings, Inc. .............................................. 97–1008 01/31/97Cable and Wireless plc, Cable and Wireless Communications plc (Joint Venture), Cable and Wireless Communicationsplc (Joint Venture) ................................................................................................................................. 97–1034 01/31/97NYNEX Corporation,.Cable and Wireless Communications plc (Joint Venture), Cable and Wireless Communications plc (Joint Venture)...................................................................................................................................................................... 97–1035 01/31/97Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Andrew Goldfarb, HCC Industries, Inc. ..................................................... 97–1037 01/31/97Kenneth R. Thomson, Thomas L. Thomas, Creative Solutions, Inc ....................................................................... 97–1043 01/31/97Irish Life plc, GR Holding Company, Inc., Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Co. ................................................ 97–1061 01/31/97Supervalu Inc., Kerry Smith, Signature Mondial, Inc. .............................................................................................. 97–1062 01/31/97Handy & Harman, Saugatuck Capital Company Limited Partnership III, Olympic Manufacturing Group, Inc. ...... 97–1072 01/31/97AMF Holdings Inc., American Recreation Centers, Inc., American Recreation Centers, Inc. ................................ 97–1077 01/31/97FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Sandra M. Peay or Parcellena P.Fielding, Contact Representatives,Federal Trade Commission, PremergerNotification Office, Bureau ofCompetition, Room 303, Washington,DC 20580, (202) 326–3100.By Direction of the Commission.Donald S. Clark,Secretary.[FR Doc. 97–3340 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6750–01–M[File No. 951–0106]American Cyanamid Company;Analysis To Aid Public CommentAGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.SUMMARY: In settlement of allegedviolations of federal law prohibitingunfair or deceptive acts or practices andunfair methods of competition, thisconsent agreement, accepted subject tofinal Commission approval, wouldprohibit, among other things, theParsipanny, New Jersey-based companyfrom conditioning the payment ofrebates or other incentives on the resaleprices its dealers charge for its products,or from otherwise agreeing with itsdealers to control or maintain resaleprices. The complaint accompanyingthe consent agreement alleges that thecompany violated antitrust laws byfixing the resale prices of its agriculturalchemical products.DATES: Comments must be received onor before April 14, 1997.ADDRESSES: Comments should bedirected to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW.,Washington, DC 20580.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William J. Baer, Federal TradeCommission, H–374, 6th andPennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington,DC 20580. (202) 326–2932. MarkWhitener, Federal Trade Commission,H–374, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave, NW.,Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326–2845.Michael E. Antalics, Federal TradeCommission, S–2627, 6th andPennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC20580. (202) 326–2821.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuantto Section 6(f) of the Federal TradeCommission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.46, and Section 2.34 of theCommission’s Rules of Practice (16 CFR2.34), notice is hereby given that theabove-captioned consent agreementcontaining a consent order to cease anddesist, having been filed with andaccepted, subject to final approval, bythe Commission, has been placed on thepublic record for a period of sixty (60)days. The following Analysis to AidPublic Comment describes the terms ofthe consent agreement, and theallegations in the accompanyingcomplaint. An electronic copy of thefull text of the consent agreementpackage can be obtained from theCommission Actions sections of the FTCHome Page (for January 30, 1997), onthe World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.’’ A papercopy can be obtained from the FTCPublic Reference Room, Room H–130,Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue,NW., Washington, DC 20580, either inperson or by calling (202) 326–3627.Public comment is invited. Suchcomments or views will be consideredby the Commission and will be availablefor inspection and copying at itsprincipal office in accordance withSection 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’sRules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).Analysis To Aid Public Comment on theProposed Consent OrderThe Federal Trade Commission (‘‘theCommission’’) has accepted anagreement to a proposed consent orderfrom American Home ProductsCorporation (‘‘AHP’’), through itswholly-owned subsidiary, AmericanCyanamid Company (‘‘AmericanCyanamid’’), located in Parsippany,New Jersey. The agreement would settlecharges by the Commission that
6256 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / NoticesAmerican Cyanamid violated Section 5of the Federal Trade Commission Act byengaging in practices that restrictedcompletion in the domestic markets forcrop protection chemicals, which areherbicides and insecticides widely usedin commercial agriculture.The proposed consent order has beenplaced on the public record for sixty(60) days for receipt of comments byinterested persons. Comments receivedduring this period will become part ofthe public record. After sixty (60) days,the Commission will again review theagreement and the comments receivedand will decide whether it shouldwithdraw from the agreement or makefinal the agreement’s proposed order.The purpose of this analysis is toinvite public comment concerning theconsent order and any other aspect ofAmerican Cyanamid’s allegedanticompetitive conduct relating to itsC.R.O.P. and A.P.E.X. rebate programs.This analysis is not intended toconstitute an official interpretation ofthe agreement and order or to modify itsterms in any way.The ComplaintThe complaint prepared for issuanceby the Commission along with theproposed order alleges that AmericanCyanamid has engaged in acts andpractices that have unreasonablyrestrained competition in the sale anddistribution of crop protectionchemicals in the United States. In 1995,the Commission’s proposed complaintalleges, American Cyanamid sold atretail more than $1 billion of its cropprotection chemicals and was themarket share leader in three domesticcrop protection chemical markets:soybean broadleaf herbicides, soybeangrass herbicides, and corn soilinsecticides, as well as being thesecond-largest domestic producer ofcotton grass herbicides.According to the complaint, AmericanCyanamid operated two cash rebateprograms for its retail dealers forapproximately five years. From 1989–1992, the plan was called the ‘‘CashReward on Performance’’ (‘‘C.R.O.P.’’)program, and was renamed the ‘‘Awardfor Performance Excellence’’(‘‘A.P.E.X.’’) program in late 1992through August 1995. The complaintstates that American Cyanamid enteredinto written agreements with its dealersunder these programs, pursuant towhich American Cyanamid offered topay its dealers substantial rebates oneach sale of its crop protectionchemicals that was made at or abovespecified minimum resale prices.According to the complaint, the dealersoverwhelmingly accepted American1 Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp ElectronicsCorp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988); Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984).Cyanamid’s rebate offer by selling at orabove the specified minimum resaleprices.The complaint further alleges that thewholesale prices in the agreements wereset at a level equal to the specifiedminimum resale prices, and because adealer received no rebate on sales belowthe specified prices, those sales weremade at a loss to the dealer.The complaint further states thatalthough American Cyanamid includedcertain non-price performance criteriain its rebate programs that couldincrease the amount of the rebate, adealer’s compliance with theseperformance criteria was neithernecessary nor, by itself, sufficient toobtain rebates. As examples, thecomplaint alleges that if a dealer met allof American Cyanamid’s performancecriteria, but sold the product for lessthan American Cyanamid’s specifiedminimum resale price, that dealerreceived no rebate on the sale. On theother hand, if the dealer met none of theperformance criteria, but sold theproduct at or above AmericanCyanamid’s specified minimum resaleprice, the dealer nonetheless received arebate on that sale.American Cyanamid’s conditioning offinancial payments on dealers’ charginga specified minimum price amounted tothe quid pro quo of an agreement onresale prices. In cases where this issuehas arisen, both before and after theSupreme Court examined the per se ruleagainst resale price maintenance inMonsanto and Sharp, 1 courts havetreated such agreements as per se illegal.See Lehman v. Gulf Oil Corp., 464 F.2d26, 39, 40 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409U.S. 1077 (1972) (stating that ‘‘ * * *adherence to a suggested price schedulewas the quid pro quo for Lehrman’sreceiving Gulf’s TCAs [temporarycompetitive allowances]’’ and ‘‘there isno comparable justification forconditioning wholesale price supportupon adherence to a schedule ofminimum retail prices.’’ (emphasis inoriginal)); Butera v. Sun Oil Co., Inc.496 F.2d 434, 437 (1st Cir. 1974). Byoffering financial inducements in returnfor selling at specified minimum prices,a manufacturer seeks the ‘‘acquiescenceor agreement’’ of its dealers in a resaleprice-fixing scheme. Monsanto, 465 U.S.at 764 n. 9. The dealer, in turn, acceptsthe manufacturer’s offer by selling at orabove the specified minimum prices.See Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc.,825 F.2d 1158, 1164 (7th Cir. 1987)(Posner, J.) (an ‘‘obvious’’ resale pricefixingagreement is found ‘‘ * * * if[the manufacturer] had told [the dealer]that it would reduce its wholesale priceto him if he raised his retail price, and[the dealer] had accepted the offer byraising his price.’’). See also Khan v.State Oil Co., 93 F.3d 1358, 1360–61(7th Cir. 1996) (Posner, J.), petition forcert. pending No. 96–871 (agreement onprice found where dealership agreementon its face allowed dealer to charge anyresale price it wished, but distributortied financial consequences to dealers’not charging the resale prices itsuggested). As a result, incentives toreduce price below the specified levelwere substantially affected by AmericanCyanamid’s rebate scheme.The rebate programs challenged inthis case are unlike situations wheremanufacturers are permitted tocondition a discount or other incentiveon that discount being ‘‘passed through’’to consumers, which prevents a dealerform simply ‘‘pocketing’’ the discount.In these types of cases, the dealer is freeto sell at even lower prices than theamount of the direct ‘‘pass through’’ ofthe discount or other incentive.Discounts cannot be conditioned,therefore, on the dealers’ adherence tospecified minimum price. See AAALiquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram andSons, Inc., 705 F.2d 1203, 1206 (10thCir. 1982), cert denied, 461 U.S. 919(183) (Seagram’s requirement of passingthrough its discount ‘‘[did] not prohibitthe wholesaler from making greaterreductions in price that the discountprovides.’’) See also Acquaire v. CanadaDry Bottling Co., 24 F.3d 401, 409–10(2d Cir. 1994); Lewis Service Center, Inc.v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 714 F.2d 842, 845–47 (8th Cir. 1983) (because dealers coulddiscount more than Mack’s salesassistance, the court found that ‘‘thepurpose of Mack’s discount program[was] not to force adherence to anyparticular price scheme of Mack’s.’’).The Proposed Consent OrderPart I of the proposed order coversdefinitions. These definitions makeclear that the consent order applies tothe directors, officers, employees, agentsand representatives of AmericanCyanamid. The order also defines theterms product, dealer and resale price.Part II of the order contains two majoroperative provisions: Part II(A) dealswith the specific conduct at issue in thiscase. It prohibits American Cyanamidfrom conditioning the payment ofrebates or other incentives on the resaleprices its dealers charge for its products.Part II(B) prevents American Cyanamidfrom otherwise agreeing with its dealersgenerally to control or maintain resaleprices.
Page 2 and 3:
IIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 4 and 5:
IVFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 6 and 7:
VIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 8 and 9:
6099Rules and RegulationsFederal Re
Page 12 and 13:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
iiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 352:
ivFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
show all

federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?