914 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS 97 F.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS91497 F. TC.Moc!ifying O.rqerIN 1' HE MATTER 010'JAMES B. LANSING SOUND , INC.MODIFYING ORDER IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THEFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACTDucket C- 1785. Decision ,Aug.1970-Modifying Order,May 20,1981This order reopens the proceeding and modifies the order issued by the: Commissionon August 24 1970, 77 F. C. 1165 35 FR 15807 , by replacing Paragraph 1(2)of the original order with one containing additional language which permitsthefirmto establish lawful , reasonable and non- discriminatory minimumstandards for its dealers and to withhold its products from dealers who fail tomaintain those standards.RROPENING AND MODIFICATION OF ORDERBy petition of April 10 , 1981 , respondent James B. Lansing SoundInc. CJBL" ) requests that Paragraph 1(2) of the Commission s orderissued against JBL on August 24 , 1970 be modified so that the orderwould no longer prohibit JBL from establishing performance standards for sellers of its loudspeakers. Pursuant to Section 2. 51 of theCommission s Rules of Practice the petition was placed on the publicrecord for comment. Attorneys for Best Products Co. , Inc. filed theonly comment requesting that the Commission deny JBL' s petition.JBL had previously petitioned the Commission to modify theconsent order; the Commission denied this petition by order datedAugust 29 ,1978. The Commission found that although there hadbeen a change of law since the order was issued the petition hadmade an inadequate showing of the need for the requested relief.Upon consideration of JBL' s petition and supporting materials andthe public comment , the Commission now finds that JBL has a verysmall market share and that JBL would likely suffer significantcompetitive injury unless the order is modified. Further the Commission notes that the proposed modification relates only to anon pricevertical restraint that the Commission s complaint had not alleged toAccordingly,be a reinforcing mechanism for resale price fixing. For these reasonsthe Commission has determined that the order should be modified.It is ordcred That the proceeding be, and it hereby is , reopened.It is further ordered That the order to cease and desist be , and ithereby is , modified by substituting the following for Paragraph 1(2).2. Preventing or prohibiting any independent dealer or distributor from reselling his products to any person or group of persons
JA1Vlh;i: tl.914L1\l1.VU1, u'Modifying Orderbusiness or class of businesses excptasxp.rsslyprovided herein.This order shall not prohibit James B. Lansing Sound , Inc. fromestablishing lawful , reasonable , and non- discriminatory minimumstandards for its dealers , including standards that relate to promotion and store display, demonstration , inventory levels , service andrepair , volume requirements and financial stability; nor shall thisorder prohibit respondent from requiring its dealers who sell JBLproducts for resale to make such sales only to dealers who maintainsuch minimum standards.Commissioner Pertschuk did not participate. Commissioner Baileyvoted in the negative.
.l.D.lD.l'-fi.l.Int-.lI' ,-ULV11VU.lUl"' UJ:\Jl.lUl"';:97 F.Modifying OrderIN THEMA !1ERSHAKLEE CORPORATIONMODIFYING ORDER IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THEFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACTDocket2790.Decision ,Feb.1976-Modifying Order,June, 1981This order reopens the proceeding and modifies the order issued by the Commissionon February 18 , 1976 , 87 F. C. 239 , 41 FR 11480 , by modifying Paragraph I ofthe Order so as to eliminate the provisions prohibiting the , firmfromgroup sales , except when rela fed to resaleprice maintenance; and by providing certain protections for existing distributors.restricting retail store sales or cross-ORDER REOPENING PROCEEDING AND MODIFYING CEASE AND DESISTORDERThe Commission on May 8, 1981 , having issued an order againstrespondent to show cause why the proceeding herein should not bereopened for the purpose of modifying Paragraph I of the consentorder to cease and desist entered on February 18 , 1976; andRespondent having answered thatit has no objectionto thereopening of the proceeding and the modification of the consentorder, as set forth in the order to show cause.it is ordered That the matter is reopened andAccordingly,Paragraph I of the order herein is modified so that it will read:It is ordered,thatThat respondent Shaklee Corporation ,its successors and assigns , and respnndent' ssentatives and employees ,officersa corporation, agents , repre-directly or indirectly, or through anycorporation , subsidiary, division or other device , in connection withthe offering for sale, sale or distribution of goods or commodities inor affecting commerce , as " commerce " is defined in the FederalTrade Commission Act , shall forthwith cease and desist from:establishing, maintaining or otherwise controlling, orattempting to fix , establish , maintain or otherwise control , directlyor indirectly, the prices and to the extent , if at all, they relate to thepricing of merchandise for resale, discounts, rebates, overrides1. Fixing,commissions , fees or bonuses or other terms or conditions of sale;provided that from the date this Order becomes final:(a)If respondent suggests to its distributors prices for resale of its
917SIIAKLEE CORP.Modifying Order916merchandise , it must state clearly and conspicuously in conjunctiontherewith the following statement:The prices quoted herein are suggested only. You are free to determine for yourselfthe prices you charge.(b) If respondent suggests to its distributors discounts ,rebatesoverrides, commissions , fees or bonuses or other terms or conditionsof sale to the extent , if at all , they relate to pricing of merchandisefor resale, it must state clearly and conspicuouslyin conjunctiontherewith the following statement:The(e.yourself thediscounts quoted herein are suggested only. You are free to determine fordiscount you grant.2. Requiring,coercing, threatening or otherwise exerting pres-sure on any distributor , directly or indirectly, to observe , maintainor advertise established or suggested retail prices.3. Requiring or requesting any distributor , directly or indirectly,to report any person or firm who does not observe the retail pricesestablished or suggested by respondent , or acting upon reports soobtained by refusing or threatening to refuse sales to the distributorso reported.4. Engaging in anyof the following for the purpose of fixing ormaintaining any resale price or in connection with the fixing ormaintaining of any resale price:(a) Requiring, contracting with , or coercing, directly or indirectly, any distributor to refrain from selling any merchandise in anyquantity to or through any specifiedperson , class of personsbusiness or class of businesses.(b) Requiring, contracting with , or coercing, directly or indirectly, any distributor to refrain from establishing a fixed retail locationfor the sale or distribution of any merchandise in any quantity.(c) Requiring or requesting any distributor , directly or indirectly,to report to respondent or to any person it designates , any person orfirm who sells any of respondent' s merchandise to a retail store orfrom a fixed retail location , or acting upon reports so obtained byrefusing or threatening to refuse sales to the distributor so reported.5. Preventing or discouraging, or attempting to prevent ordiscourage any distributor from selling or offering for sale productsto retail customers on the grounds that such customer is thecustomer of another distributor.6. Until March 1 , 1986 , restricting, prohibiting, taking any actionagainst , threatening or otherwise interfering with a distributor
EDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS918Modifying Order97 F.operation of a retail store owned or , if leased by a distributor , duringthe remaining term of the lease (but no later than March 1 , 1986),provided that:(a) For distributors as of July 1 ,1980 the store was acquired orthe lease was executed prior to July 1 , 1980 and for those becomingdistributors after July 1 , 1980 the store was acquired or the lease wasexecuted prior to notice of the May 8 , 1981 Order to Show Cause inthis matter;(b) Shaklee products account for more than 35 percent of thestore s retail sales;(c) The distributor provides to the respondent , within 60 days ofactual notice of this order , evidence of ownership or a copy of thelease and evidence that Shaklee products accounted for more than 35percent of the facility s retail sales , during the six month periodprior to notice of the May 8 , 1981 Order to Show Cause in thismatter.Provided, however that nothing contained in this paragraph shallprohibit respondent and a distributor from entering an agreementpursuant to which the distributor voluntarily agrees to discontinuesuch retail sales through an owned or leased facility.Providedfurther that this paragraph shall not prohibit respondent fromrequiring a distributor to discontinue such retail sales through anowned or leased facility upon reimbursement by respondent forfinancial loss incurred by the distributor and attributable to thediscontinuance of such retailsales. Such reimbursement shallconsist of payment for (1) the cost of the portion of inventory insaleable condition (distributor net price less any bonuses paid byShaklee) which was purchased prior to notice of the May 8 , 1981Order to Show Cause in this matter and exceeds 50. 00 at distributor s cost (2) losses from subleasing or any lease termination penalty,and (3) the costs of conversion of a store to non- Shaklee uses. Anyirreconcilable disagreement between respondent and a distributorwith respect to the amount owed to a distributor under thisparagraph shall be resolved by binding arbitration (arbitrator s feesto be paid by Shaklee).7. Until March 1 , 1986 , restricting, prohibiting, taking any actionagainst , threatening or otherwise interfering with a distributorsales to a retail store from any property owned or , if leased by thedistributor , during the remaining term of the lease (but no later thanMarch 1 ,1986), and principally used for sales to retail storesprovided that:
11i-f\LEoEoAJI\.r.::1:7Modifying Order916acquire'" or thg lease was executed after1976 and prior to July 1 , 1980;(a) The property wasFebruary 18 ,(b) The inventory exceeds 200. 00 in value and was acquiredprior to notice of the May 8 , 1981 Order 1'0 Show Cause in thismatter;(c) Shaklcc products account for more than 35% of the grossdollar volume of sales from the distributor s property;(d) Morc than 50 pcrcent of thc distributor s gross dollar volumeof sales of Shaklee products were to retail stores;(e) Thc distributor provides respondent within sixty days ofactual notice of this order , evidence of ownership or a copy of thelease and evidence that more than 50 percent of the distributorsales of Shaklee products were to retail stores during the six monthsprior to notice of the May 8 , 1981 Order to Show Causc in thismatter.Provided, however that nothing contained in this paragraph shallprohibit respondent and a distributor from entering an agreementpursuant to which the distributor voluntarily agrees to discontinuesales to rctail stores.Provided further that this paragraph shall notprohibit respondent from requiring a distributor to discontinue salesto retail stores upon reimbursement by respondent for the financialloss incurred by the distributor and attributable to the discontin-uance of such sales to retail stores. Such reimbursement shall consistof payment for (1) the cost of the portion of invcntory in salcablecondition (distrihutor net price less any bonuses paid by Shaklee)which was purchased prior to notice of the May 8 , 1981 Ordcr 1'0Show Cause in this matter and exceeds 50. 00 at distributor s cost(2) losses from subleasing or any lease termination penalty, and (3)the cost of conversion of such property to non- Shakleeuses. Anyirreconcilable disagreement between respondent and a distributorwith respect to the amount owed to a distributor under thisparagraph shall be resolved by binding arbitration (arbitrator s feesto bc paid by Shaklee).
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS92097 F.ComplaintIN THE MATTER OFAMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORPORATIONCONSENT ORDER , ETC. , IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OFSEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AND SEC. 7 OFTHE CLAYTON ACTDocket C- 3067. Complaint ,J1J.e1981-Decisiun , June 2 1981This consent order requires , among other things , American Hospital SupplyCorporation (" AHSC" ), an Evanston , Ilinois manufacturer and distributor ofhealth care products, to timely divest , in accordance with the terms of theorder , either 100 percent of the stock of American Latex Corporation ("ALC", all assets and properties constituting ALC togethcr with all the assets ofAmerican Cystoscope Makers, Inc. The order further requires respondents tomaintain ALC as a viable business entity pending divestiture; offer topurchase for a period of one year all urological catheters from the acquirer ofALC; and refrain for five years from acquiring more than 1 percent of stock orany interest in an entity engaged in the manufacture and distribution ofurological catheters.AppearancesNorman A. Drezin , KarenPeter A. Sklarew.For the Commission:8. LcffandFor the respondent:LewisG.Bokat, RandallSeymour D. Lewis , Rosenman CoLin FreundCohen Washington , D.COMPLAINTThe Fcderal Trade Commission , having reason to believe that theabove named respondent , subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission , has acquired all the assets of American Cystoscope Makers , Inc.in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act , as amended , (15 UB.18) and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act , as amcnded(15 U. C. 45), and having found that a proceeding in rcspect thereofwould be in the public interest , hercby issues its complaint , pursuantto Section 11 of the Clayton Act (15 U. C. 21) and Section 5(b) of theederal Trade Commission Act (15 U. C. 45(b)), stating its chargesas follows:DEFINITIONS1. For purposes ofthis complaint , the termurological cathetersmeans any flexible product designed , promoted , and sold for inser-tion into the urethral orifice of a human or other animal in order to
.u. Complaint920drain , irrigate or otherwise provide access to the urinary bladder ofsaid human or animal.urological catheter products2. The termmeans all urologicalcatheters sold separately and all urological catheterkitsortraysthatinclude a urological catheter and accessories used in conjunctionwith the insertion of a urological catheter.II.RESPONDENTHospital Supply Corporation (AHSC) is a corporaexisting, and doing business under and by virtue ofthc laws of the State of Ilinois with its office and principal place ofbusiness located at One American Plaza , Evanston , Illinois.4. In 1979 AHSC , including its foreign subsidiaries , had consoli3. Amcricantion organized ,04 billon and consolidatedassets of approximately 1.28 billion.5. AHSC is a multinational manufacturer and distributor of adated revenues of approximately 2.wide range of products used and consumed in the hcalth care fieldincluding medical supplies , pharmaceuticals, medical and surgicalinstruments and laboratory supplies.6. AHSC has been engaged in the manufacture and distributionof urological catheters through its American Pharmaseal Divisionand in the distribution of urological catheters through its AmericanHospital Supply Division and its American V. Muellcr Division.Ill.7. AmericanTHE ACQUIRED CORPORATIONCystoscope Makcrs, Inc. (ACMI) is a corporationorganized , existing, and doing business under and by virtue of thelaws of the State of New York with its office and principal place ofbusiness at 300 Stillwater Avenue , Stamford , Connecticut. Prior tothe acquisition of ACMI by respondent AHSC ,American LatexCorporation (ALC) was a subsidiary of ACMI , organized, existing,and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State ofDelaware with its office and principal place of business in SullivanIndiana.including its foreign subsidiaries , had consoliapproximately 40. 2 million and consolidated8. In 1979 ACMI ,dated revenues ofassets of 27. 3 million.9. ACMIis cngaged primarily in the research , developmentmanufacture , and marketing of endoscopes.10. ACMI through its subsidiary, American Latex Corporation , isengaged in the manufacture and sale of urological catheters.
ComplaintIV.11. At all times97 F.JURISDICTIONrelevant herein ,respondent AIISC and ACMIhave been and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of theClayton Act , as amended , and cngaged in or affecting commcrcewithin the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act , asamended.THE ACQUISITION12. On October 10 , 1980 , respondent AHSC acquircdly all of the assets of ACMI for approximatelyincluding 100% of the stock of ALe.VI.ubstantial 38. 5 millionTRADE AND COMMERCE13. For the purpose of this complaint , the relevant productmarket is the manufacture and sale of urological catheter productsand the relevant geographic market is the United States.14. Urological catheters are comprised primarily of urethral andFoley type catheters used to drain and/or irrigate the urinarybladder.15. Sales to hospitals of urological catheter products in theUnited States in 1979 are estimated to have been approximately 70.4 million.16. Prior to the acquisition of ACMI by AHSC , AHSC and ACMIwere actual competitors in the manufacture and sale of urologicalcatheter products. In 1979 , AHSC , throug-h its American PharmasealDivision , ranked approximately fifth in total sales among- allurological catheter product manufacturers. AHSC' s share of urologi-cal catheter products sales is estimated to have been approximately1 % and ACMI's share approximately 3. 6% in 1979.17. The urological catheter products market is hig-hly concentrat-ed. In 1979 the four top ranking firms accounted for approximately82 7%of domestic sales.VII.18. TheEFFECTS OF' THE ACQUISITION; VIOLATIONS CHARGEDeffects of the acquisition by AHSC of ACMI may besubstantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopolythe manufacture and sale of urological catheter products in theUnited States in violation of Section7 of the Clayton Act , asamended , and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act , asamended , in the following ways among others:
Dccision and Order920a. Actualmanufactureeliminated;competition betwcen respondent and ACMI in theand sale of urological catheter products will heb. ACMI as a substantial , indcpendent competitive factor in themanufacture and sale of urological catheter products will beeliminated;c. Concentration in the manufacture and sale of urologicalcatheter products wil be increased ,and the possibility of deconcen-tration may be diminished; andd. Additionalacquisitions and mergers in the industry may beencouraged.DECISION AND ORDERThe Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigationof the proposed acquisition of American Cystoscopc Makers , Inc. byAmerican Hospital Supply Corporation , and the respondent havingbeen furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of a complaint whichthe Bureau of Competition proposed to present to the Commissionfor its consideration and which , if issued by the Commission , wouldcharge respondent with violation of the Clayton and Fcdcral TradeCommission Acts; andThe respondcnt and counsel for the Commission having thercaftcrexecuted an agreement containing a consent order , an admission bythe respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaiddraft of complaint , a statement that the signing of said agreement isfor settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission byrcspondent that the law has bcen violated as alleged in suchcomplaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by theCommission s Rules; andThe Commission having thereafter considered the matter andhaving determined that it had reason to believe that the respo
914 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Moc!ifying O.rqer_ 97 F.TC. IN 1'HE MATTER 010' JAMES B. LANSING SOUND, INC. MODIFYING ORDER IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Ducket C-1785.Decision, Aug. 1970-Modifying Order, May 20, 1981 This order reopens the proceeding and modifies the order issued by the: Commission
Important Telephone Numbers Case Management & Social Work (914) 493-7631 Chaplaincy (914) 493-7125 Child Life and Creative Arts Therapies (914) 493-6640 Children’s Hospital Administration (914) 493-6160 Concierge Services (914) 493-7505 Emergency Department (914) 493-7307 Family Resource Center (914) 493-8503 Foundation Office (914) 493-2575
Cinza Aço Código 55 Ônix Enigma Código 52 Cinza Cristal Código 53 Opala Profundo Código 54 ZEM ZEMENT ENT Cinza Aço e Sépia Claro - 914,4 x 914,4 mm 914,4 x 914,4 mm ESpESSurA 3 mm CApA 0,5 mm
Church of Sts. John and Paul 280 WEAVER STREET LARCHMONT, NEW YORK 10538 Phone: 914-834-5458 Fax: 914-833-5081 E-Mail: office@sjpparish.org Web: www.sjpparish.org Parish School: 914-834-6332 Religious Educa on: 914-834-4597 Welcome To All Our Parish Family invites all to be ac ve and
CATERPILLAR MACHINE PRICE LIST 914 914 WHEEL LOADER Ship Weight LIST PRICE LEICESTER, ENGLAND lbs AT DEALER Standard Equipment: . NJ State Approved Co-op #65MCESCCPS Grounds Equipment - Bid #ESCNJ 18/19-25 Bid Term: 2/22/19 - 2/21/21; Extended to 2/21/22 . Michelin Product Code #04118 Radial, non-directional tread for traction. Cut and .
515 North Street, White Plains, NY 10605 69 North Broadway, White Plains, NY 10603 P 914.949.6227 F 914.949.2021 P 914.428.1130 F 914.428.1439 ywcawpcw.org I hereby authorize the release of the requested information, which will be kept confidential and used for program purposes only. The YWCA will call to verify this information.
ILLUSTRATED PARTS CATALOG d06597.fm BRP-Rotax Effectivity: 912 /914 Series Edition 4/Rev. 3 72-10-00 Page 4 June 01/2018 Chapter) 72-10-00 PROPELLER GEAR ASSY. Parts per Engine FIG. & ITEM NO. STATUS PART NO. Description 912 A 912 F 912 S 912 UL 912 ULS 914 F 914 UL I 2,27 WITHOUT POS. 1,2,34-39 887281 GEARBOX WITH CLUTCH 2.27-2 1Ap 1Ap 1Ap
CarMax, Inc., a corporation. ) ) COMPLAINT. The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that CarMax, Inc., a corporation ("Respondent"), has violated provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges: 1.
RP-2 ISO 14001:2015 Issued: 8/15/15 DQS Inc. Revised: 5/12/17 Introduction This Environmental Management System Assessment Checklist is a tool for understanding requirements of ISO14001:2015 “Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use”. The Checklist covers Clauses 4-10 requirements with probing questions about how an organization has addressed requirements and .
