Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Please attach to this questionnaire the three most recently prepared Annual Reports of your company, its affiliates, and subsidiaries. For companies who do not have Annual Reports as such, please attach copies of the three most recently prepared profit and loss statements and balance sheets.

EXHIBIT 6–CORRESPONDENCE FROM FEDERAL

TRADE COMMISSION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., July 30, 1975. Re retail food inquiry file No. 741 0043. Representative ANTHONY GALLUGI, Legislative Commission on Food, Massachusetts General Court, Boston,

Mass. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE GALLUGI: From a telephone conversation with Barry Wax of the Massachusetts Consumer Council, I understand that the staff of the Federal Trade Commission may have access to materials compiled by your Legislative Commission on Food. Attached is a copy of my letter to Mr. Wax, a copy of the Federal Trade Commission's Resolution Directing the Use of Compulsory Process, and a copy of the press release describing the opening of our investigation of food marketing practices.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and your assisting us in our investigation. Sincerely,

TED JONES,

Attorney, Bureau of Competition. Attachments.

JULY 30, 1975. Re retail food inquiry file No. 741 0043. BARRY Wax, Esq., Massachusetts Consumer Council, Boston, Mass.

DEAR MR. Wax: As I explained to you in our telephone conversation of July 24, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission is conducting an investigation of food marketing practices for possible violations of the federal antitrust laws in six metropolitan areas throughout the United States. Copies of the Commission's Resolution Directing Use of Compulsory Process in this matter and of the press release describing the investigation are attached for your information.

I understand that you sent a questionnaire to several food companies and inquired into certain areas of chain store marketing on behalf of the Legislative Commission on Food of the General Court. Having access to the material compiled by the legislative commission will be of assistance to us in conducting our investigation.

If photocopying material in the possession of the legislative commission and sending it to us for our use presents no problem, as you suggested, I think this would be the best way to approach our gaining access to the information you have compiled.

We would appreciate receiving copies of each type of questionnaire sent to the food companies, all responses to the questionnaires, all documents, records, memoranda, hearing transcripts, investigative reports, staff reports, commission reports, and other materials in the possession of the legislative commission which may be relevant to our investigation.

Also, since the legislative commission is an ongoing project, I would appreciate being able to check back with you periodically to determine if additional information has come into your possession which may be of use to us in our investigation.

If you need to contact me with regard to our request, I may be reached by telephone at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington on (202) 962-4494. Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,

TED JONES,

Attorney, Bureau of Competition. Attachments.

United States of America

Before Federal Trade Commission

Commissioners: Lewis A. Engman, Paul Rand Dixon, Mayo J. Thompson, M. Elizabeth Hanford, and Stephen Nye.

RESOLUTION DIRECTING USE OF COMPULSORY PROCESS IN NONPUBLIC

INVESTIGATION

File No. 741 0043

Nature and Scope of Investigation: To investigate the status and condition throughout the United States and in the various parts thereof of competition in the retail food store industry, including the degree of concentration in ownership or operation of grocery stores; the relationship between the levels of concentration and retail food prices; and the existence of any and all anticompetitive pricing practices which may involve any violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45), Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18), or any other statute administered by the Commission.

The Federal Trade Commission hereby resolves and directs that any and all compulsory processes available to it be used in connection with this investigation.

Authority to Conduct Investigation: Sections 6, 9, and 10 of Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46, 49, 50; FTC Procedures and Rules of Practice 16 C.F.R. 1.1, et seq. and supplements thereto. By direction of the Commission.

CHARLES A. TOBIN, Secretary. Dated: June 18, 1974.

(Federal Trade Commission News) FTC ANNOUNCES INVESTIGATION OF Retail FooD PRICES The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it is conducting an industrywide investigation into retail food prices. The investigation will examine the relationships between market structure and concentration levels, on one hand, and the amount of price competition and level of retail food prices, on the other.

This investigation is part of the Commission's broad program involving competition in the food industry. It will focus initially on a limited number of cities: Atlanta, Denver, Detroit, Jersey City, Little Rock and Washington, D.C.

In its resolution directing the investigation and authorizing use of compulsory process, the Commission said its purpose is "To investigate the status and condition throughout the United States and in the various parts thereof of competition in the retail food store industry, including the degree of concentration in ownership or operation of grocery stores; the relationship between the levels of concentration and retail food prices; and the existence of any and all anticompetitive pricing practices, which may involve any violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act . Section 7 of the Clayton Act . . ., or any other statute administered by the Commission.

Pursuant to Commission policy the investigation will be nonpublic.

The Commission is making this announcement pursuant to the recent decision to make the existence of industrywide investigations public. The Commission takes no position as to whether violations of law exist.

EXHIBIT 7-NEWSPAPER REPORT ON USDA ACTIVITY

(From the Boston Evening Globe, Aug. 14, 1975) MEAT COMPANY CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL PAYOFFS

(By Stephen Curwood) Wilson & Co., one of the nation's biggest meat packers, made more than $72,000 in illegal kickback payments to induce stores to sell their meats, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) charged yesterday in an administrative complaint.

Wilson denied the charges in a statement issued yesterday from its Oklahoma City headquarters. Last year, Wilson grossed more than $2 billion from the sale of meats.

USDA said the payoffs and other promotion programs were conducted between 1969 and 1973 by the firm's Albert Lea plant in Minnesota without the knowledge or consent of the food wholesalers and supermarket chains whose companies or employees were involved.

"The payment program was aimed at increasing the sale of Wilson's fresh and processed pork products, thereby gaining a competitive edge over other packers in the same area, a summary of the USDA complaint said.

The USDA said more than $19,000 in "commercial bribe” payoffs were made to 15 employees of five companies to induce them to buy Wilson products. Gifts ranging from $50 worth of sporting goods to a $4000 automobile were made to the employees.

At one firm, Super Valu Stores of Hopkins, Minnesota, Wilson was charged with conducting a point promotion in which store managers and meat and merchandising buyers were given a choice of valuable gifts based upon the volume of Wilson products purchased.

The other outlets whose employees were named included Biggers Bros. of Charlotte, N.C.; Frickson Bros., of Bloomington, Minn, Twin Fair of Depew, N.Y.; and Red Owl Store, Hopkins, Minn. The outlets were not charged.

The USDA charged, in connection with the improper use of cooperative advertising funds, that more than $38,000 was paid, when "in fact no advertising services had been performed and the payment were actually a subterfuge to rebate a portion of the purchase price paid by customers for Wilson products.

USDA also said Wilson converted to its own use more than $15,000 in cooperative funds that had accrued to two stores without the stores' knowledge or consent.

Wilson denied that its policies or practices "violated the Packers and Stockyards Act as charged.".

"Our policies are and always have been in strict compliance with the law," a Wilson spokesman said. "We feel confident the company is not guilty of any wrongdoing.”

A USDÅ spokesman said the “filing of the complaint does not prove Wilson & Co. has violated the act. The firm has a right to a hearing to determine if the evidence supports the charges. If the charges are proved, the firm would be placed under a cease and desist order.” According to a USDA attorney, Wilson must respond to the charges in 20 days.

[ocr errors]
« ПретходнаНастави »