Page images
PDF
EPUB

28. That samples of said delivered price quotations used by defendants during said period of time since the entry of said order to cease and desist and within the last five years are contained in and appear at the following places :

"Page Three Book A, A No. 9 Freight Charges" of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book A";

"Page Three Book B, No. 9 Freight Charges" of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book B";

"Page Three Book C, C No. 9 Freight Charges" of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book C";

Page "Instructions Page 10 Issue 3 Effective November 13, 1933" entitled "Freight Factors" of Habirshaw Rubber Power Cable Price Book; and

Pages "1221 page 21" and "1221 Page 22" of General Electric Varnished Cambric Cable Price Book (Cable Handbook 63-A).

That said price books and pages are those alleged in paragraph 16 of this complaint to have been compiled, exchanged, and used by the defendants since the entry of said order to cease and desist and which books are therein alleged to have been described by the defendants and to be known to them by the designations or titles by which they are described in this paragraph.

29. That defendants' said practice and policy of quoting alleged in paragraph 27 hereof are as provided by and are in continuation and furtherance of the understanding and agreement among defendants alleged in paragraph Five (b) of the amended complaint in said antecedent proceeding by the Federal Trade Commission, which paragraph Five (b) is set out in full in paragraph 25 hereof, and are in violation of subparagraph (8) of the said order to cease and desist. 30. By reason of the foregoing and as provided by Sections 5 (1) and 16 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (approved September 26, 1914, and March 21, 1938), each of the defendants became and is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

31. Plaintiff reaffirms, realleges, and incorporates as though herein set forth in full each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 13, inclusive, of this complaint.

32. That prior to the entry of said cease and desist order on December 29, 1936, each of the defendants herein, in its substituted answer to the amended complaint in said antecedent proceeding by the Federal Trade Commission against these defendants and others, formally admitted the following material allegation contained in the said amended complaint (par. Five (c)):

(c) For the purpose and with the effect of further suppressing price competition among themselves, respondent manufacturers of said commodities supplemented said uniform delivered price lists by imposing a uniform charge for the large wooden reels on which cable is wound for delivery and a uniform allowance for the return of such reels. Said price lists included a uniform charge for the return freight on such reels, which charge, in some cases, was more and in other cases less than the actual cost of such return freight to the plant of a given manufacturer.

That the term "respondent manufacturers" as used in paragraph Five (c) of said amended complaint included the defendants in this action, who were named therein as respondents.

33. That samples of the agreed schedules containing said charges and allowances alleged and referred to in Paragraph 32 hereof are contained in and appear at the following places:

"Page Three Book A," "Page Three C Book A, A No. 1" entitled "Wood Reel Prices," "Page Three D Book A," "Page Four Book A," "Page 4A Book A," of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book A";

"Page Three Book B," "Page Three C Book B," "Page Three D Book B," "Page 4 Book B," "Page 4A Book B," of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book B";

"Page Three Book C," "Page Three C Book C," "Page Three D Book C." "Page Four Book C," and "Page 4A Book C," of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book C";

"Instructions Page 6 Issue #4," "Instructions Page 11 Issue #6," "Instructions Page 15 Issue #1," "Instructions Page 22 Issue #2," and "Instructions Page 22A Issue #1," of Habirshaw Rubber Power Cable Price Book.

"1221 Page 12," "1221 Page 23," "1221 Page 24," "1221 Page 25," "1221 Page 26," "1221 Page 27," "1221 Page 28," "1221 Page 29," "1221 Page 33," "1221 Page 35," "1221 Page 36," and "1221 Page 37," of General Electric Company Varnished Cambric Cable Price Book;

"1221 Page 20," "1221 Page 21," "1221 Page 25," "1221 Page 26," "1221 Page 27," "1221 Page 28," "1221 Page 29," "1221 Page 30," "1221 Page 33," "1221 Page 34," and "1221 Page 35," of General Electric Special Cable Price Books, including price lists on Parkway Cable and Special Types of Varnished Cambric Cable.

That said price books and pages are those alleged in paragraph 14 of this complaint to have been compiled, printed, and circulated among the defendants prior to the entry of said order to cease and desist and which books are therein alleged to have been described by the defendants and to be known to them by the designations or titles by which they are described in this paragraph.

34. That since the entry of the said order to cease and desist and down to the present time, each of the defendants has continued to quote the charges to be made for reels and allowances for return of empty reels identical with the charges and allowances made therefor on like products by the other defendants. 35. That defendants have continued said practice alleged in paragraph 34 hereof and have continued to quote terms that provide for some purchasers to pay more and others to be allowed less than the actual cost of freight on said reels, in order to maintain and preserve identical delivered price quotations by all the defendants.

36. That samples of the schedules containing said charges and allowances alleged and set forth in paragraphs 34 and 35 hereof are contained in and appear at the following places:

"Page Three Book A," "Page Three C Book A," "Page Three D Book A," "Page Three E Book A," "Page Three E-1 Book A," "Page Three F Book A," "Page Four Book A," and "Page 4A Book A," of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price “Book A";

"Page Three Book B," "Page Three C Book B," "Page Three D Book B," "Page Three E Book B," "Page Three E-1 Book B," "Page Three F Book B," "Page 4 Book B," and "Page 4A Book B," of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book B";

"Page Three Book C," "Page Three C Book C," "Page Three D Book C," "Page Three E Book C," "Page Three E-1 Book C," "Page Three F Book C," "Page Four Book C," and "Page Four A Book C," of Okonite Impregnated Paper Cable Price "Book C";

"Instructions Page 1, Issue 8," "Instructions Page 1-B Issue 1," "Instructions Page 2-A Issue 6," "Instructions Page 2-B Issue #4," "Instructions Page 6 Issue #6," "Instructions Page 7 Issue #6," "Instructions Page 10 Issue #3," "Instructions Page 11 Issue #6," "Instructions Page 12 Issue #3," "Instructions Page 15 Issue 4," "Instructions Page 22, Issue 5," "Instructions Page 22-A Issue 4," "Instructions Page 23 Issue 3," of Habirshaw Rubber Power Cable Price Book; and

"1221 Page 1," "1221 Page 2," "1221 Page 4," "1221 Page 21," "1221 Page 22," "1221 Page 23," "1221 Page 24," "1221 Page 25," "1221 Page 26,” “1221 Page 27," and "1221 Page 42," of General Electric Varnished Cambric Cable Price Book (Cable Handbook 63-A).

That said price books and pages are those alleged in paragraph 16 of this complaint to have been compiled, exchanged and used by the defendants since the entry of said order to cease and desist and which books are therein alleged to have been described by the defendants and to be known to them by the designations or titles by which they are described in this paragraph.

37. That defendants' said method of quoting charges for reels and allowances for the return of empty reels alleged in paragraphs 34 and 35 hereof is for the purpose and with the effect of further suppressing price competition among defendants, as alleged in said paragraph Five (c) of the amended complaint in said antecedent proceeding by the Federal Trade Commission (which paragraph Five (c) is set out in full in paragraph 32 of this complaint), is as provided by and in continuation and furtherance of the combination and conspiracy alleged in said amended complaint, and is in violation of subparagraph (9) of said order to cease and desist.

38. By reason of the foregoing and as provided by Sections 5 (1) and 16 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (approved September 26, 1914, and March 21,

1938), each of the defendants became and is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

39. Plaintiff reaffirms, realleges and incorporates as though herein set forth in full each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 13, inclusive, of this complaint.

40. That since the entry of said order to cease and desist, defendants have collaborated and cooperated with each other, and with competitors not named herein as defendants, through discussions and agreements at meetings of committees of representatives of members of the industry, including defendants, to make uniform changes from time to time in the schedules of charges to be made by defendants and their competitors for reels used in delivering cable and wire and of allowances to be made for the return of empty reels.

41. That the collaboration and cooperation by defendants alleged in paragraph 40 hereof have been pursuant to new agreements, combinations and conspiracies among defendants and in violation of subparagraph (9) of said order to cease and desist.

42. By reason of the foregoing and as provided by Sections 5 (1) and 16 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (approved September 26, 1914, and March 21, 1938), each of the defendants became and is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

43. Plaintiff reaffirms, realleges and incorporates as though herein set forth in full each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 to 13, inclusive, of this complaint.

44. That prior to the entry of said cease and desist order on December 29, 1936, each of the defendants herein, in its substituted answer to the amended complaint in said antecedent proceeding by the Federal Trade Commission against these defendants and others, formally admitted the following material allegation contained in the said amended complaint (par. Five (f)):

(f) As an incident to and a necessary result of said delivered price policy respondent manufacturers habitually and systematically discriminated in price, after making due allowance for the cost of transportation, among their various customers, exacted higher prices from customers having little or no transportation expense, and accepted lower prices from those having heavy transportation expense. As a further result of said delivered price policy, customers located at or near the place of manufacture and shipment were deprived of the advantage of such location and were required to contribute to the cost of transportation of more distant customers, notwithstanding that such customers frequently were in competition with each other. As a further result of such policy, respondent manufacturers charged and collected from many of their customers, in the guise of transportation and delivery charges, more, and from others of their customers, less, than the actual cost thereof.

That the term "respondent manufacturers" as used in paragraph Five (f) of said amended complaint included the defendants in this action, who were named therein as respondents.

45. That since the entry of said order to cease and desist and down to the present time, each of the defendants has continued to quote in accordance with uniform delivered prices for each of several zones as alleged in paragraphs 26 and 27 of this complaint, and to quote charges for reels and allowances for and upon return of reels as alleged in paragraphs 34, 35, 36, and 37 of this complaint, although such continuation has involved habitual and systematic discrimination in mill net prices among its customers, in the same manner and with the same results as admitted by each of the defendants in their respective answers to the Commission's amended complaint.

46. That the practice alleged in paragraph 45 hereof is as provided by, in accordance with and in continuation and furtherance of the agreement, combination and conspiracy set forth and alleged in the said amended complaint of the Federal Trade Commission in its said antecedent proceeding against these defendants and others, and particularly in paragraph Five (f) of said amended

complaint (which paragraph is set out in full in paragraph 42 hereof) and is in violation of subparagraphs (8) and (9) of said order to cease and desist.

47. By reason of the foregoing and as provided by Sections 5 (1) and 16 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (approved September 26, 1914, and March 21, 1938), each of the defendants became and is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants as follows: (a) on the first cause of action against each of the defendants in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

(b) on the second cause of action against each of the defendants in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

(c) on the third cause of action against each of the defendants in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

(d) on the fourth cause of action against each of the defendants in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

(e) on the fifth cause of action against each of the defendants in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

(f) on the sixth cause of action against each of the defendants in the sum of $5,000 for each violation which has occurred within the five years immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

(g) together with the costs and disbursements of this action and whatever other relief the Court deems just and proper in the premises.

JOHN F. X. MCGOHEY,
United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
Attorney for Plaintiff.

By JOHN B. GREEGAN,

Assistant United States Attorney, Office & Post Office Address:

United States Court House, Foley Square
Borough of Manhattan, City of New York.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Civil Action 33-128

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST AMERICAN STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION; ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY, A CORPORATION; GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION; PHELPS-DODGE COPPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION; HABIRSHAW CABLE AND WIRE CORPORATION; AND THE OKONITE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by John F. X. McGohey, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, having brought this action to recover civil penalties provided by Section 5 (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (Title 15, Section 45, United States Code), and having filed its complaint, and

The defendants having interposed answers denying the material allegations of the complaint, and it appearing that by reason of the offers of settlement which were severally made by the defendants American Steel and Wire Company of New Jersey, Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, General Electric Company, Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporaton and The Okonite Company, and which have been duly accepted by the plaintiff concurrently with the entry of this judgment, it is unnecessary to proceed with the trial of the cause or to take testimony therein or that any adjudication be made by the Court of any of the issues presented by the pleadings herein, and

This action having thus been settled, it is pursuant to such settlement and upon the several consents of the defendants American Steel and Wire Company

of New Jersey, Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, General Electric Company, Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporation and The Okonite Company

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, without any admissions of fact by the defendants or any determination of fact by the Court, the United States have and recover of and from the defendants as follows:

Of and from American Steel and Wire Company of New Jersey the sum of Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00);

Of and from Anaconda Wire and Cable Company the sum of Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00);

Of and from General Electric Company the sum of Seventy-five Hundred ($7,500.00).

Of and from Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporation the sum of Seventyfive Hundred Dollars ($7,500,00);

[ocr errors]

Of and from The Okonite Company the sum of Seventy-five Hundred Dollars ($75,000.00).

And it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT the complaint therein be and the same hereby is dismissed as to Habir-Shaw Cable and Wire Corporation.

Dated: New York, N. Y. April 25, 1947.
Approved:

Judgment Rendered April 25, 1947.

A true copy.

JOHN BRIGHT, United States District Judge.

WILLIAM V. CONNELL, Clerk.

JOHN F. X. MCGOHEY,

Entry of the within judgment is hereby consented to: [SEAL]

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

KENNETH B. HALSTEAD,

Attorney for American Steel and Wire Company of New Jersey.

CHADBOURNE, WALLACE, PARKE & WHITESIDE,

Attorneys for Anaconda Wire and Cable Company.

CAHILL, GORDON, ZACHRY & REINDEL,

Attorneys for General Electric Company.

DEBEVOISE, PLIMPTON & PAGE,

Attorneys for Phelps-Dodge Copper Products Corporation and Habirshaw
Cable and Wire Corporation.

FRANCIS E. NEAGLE,

Attorney for The Okonite Company.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JUDGMENT

Civil Action 33-128

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, V. AMERICAN STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION; ANACONDA WIRE AND CABLE COMPANY, A COBPORATION; GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION; PHELPS DODGE COPPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION; HABERSHAW CABLE AND WIRE CORPORATION; AND THE OKONITE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by John F. X. McGohey, United States Attor ney for the Southern District of New York, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, having brought this action to recover civil penalties provided by Section 5 (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (Title 15, Section 45, United States Code), and having filed its com plaint, and

The defendant GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, having interposed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, and it appearing that by reason of the offer of settlement which was made by the defendant, GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, and which has been duly accepted by the plaintiff concurrently with the entry of this judgment, it is unnecessary to proceed with the trial of the cause or to take testimony therein or that any adjudication be made by the Court of any of the issues presented by the pleadings herein, and

« PreviousContinue »