[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29763-29768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14473]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division


United States v. A&L Mayer Associates, Inc., et al. No. 96-CV-40-
44 (E.D. Pa., Filed May 30, 1996); Proposed Final Judgment and 
Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)-(h), that a proposed Final Consent 
Judgment, Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed 
with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania in the above-captioned case.
    On May 30, 1996, the United States filed a civil antitrust 
Complaint to prevent and restrain A&L Mayer Associates, Inc., A&L 
Mayer, Inc. and Fibras Saltillo, S.A. de C.V., from conspiring to fix 
prices and allocate the sales volume of tampico fiber imported and sold 
in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 
U.S.C. 1). Tampico fiber is a vegetable fiber grown in Mexico and used 
as a filler in industrial and consumer brushes.
    The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed with unnamed co-
conspirators to: (1) Fix the prices of tampico fiber imported into the 
United States; (2) fix the resale prices charged by their United States 
distributors; and (3) allocate tampico fiber sales between their 
distributors.
    The proposed Final Judgment would prohibit the defendants from 
entering into any agreement or understanding with any other processor 
of tampico fiber or any of such processor's distributors for:
    (1) Raising, fixing, or maintaining the price or other terms or 
conditions for the sale or supply of tampico fiber;
    (2) Allocating sales volume, geographic markets or customers for 
tampico fiber;
    (3) Taking concerted action to discourage or eliminate new entrants 
into the tampico fiber market; and
    (4) Taking concerted action to restrict or eliminate the supply of 
tampico fiber to any customer.
    The proposed Final Judgment would also prohibit the defendants from 
adhering to or adopting any resale

[[Page 29764]]

pricing policy and from terminating or threatening to terminate any 
distributor for that distributor's pricing.
    Public comment is invited within the statutory sixty (60) day 
period. Such comments will be published in the Federal Register and 
filed with the Court. Comments should be addressed to Robert E. 
Connolly, Chief, Middle Atlantic Office, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Antitrust Division, The Curtis Center, 6th and Walnut Streets, Suite 
650 West, Philadelphia, PA 19106 (telephone number 215-597-7405).
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director of Operations.
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania
    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. A&L Mayer Associates, 
Inc.; A&L Mayer, Inc.; and Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V.; 
Defendants. Civil Action No. 96-CV-4044, Judge Jay C. Waldman.

Stipulation

    It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their 
respective attorneys, that:
    (1) The parties consent that a final judgment in the form hereto 
attached may be filed and entered by the Court at any time after the 
expiration of the sixty (60) day period for public comment provided by 
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16 (b)-(h), 
without further notice to any party or other proceedings, either upon 
the motion of any party or upon the Court's own motion, provided that 
plaintiff has not withdrawn its consent as provided herein;
    (2) The plaintiff may withdraw its consent hereto at any time 
within said period of sixty (60) days by serving notice thereof upon 
the other party hereto and filing said notice with the Court;
    (3) In the event the plaintiff withdraws its consent hereto, this 
stipulation shall be of no effect whatever in this or any other 
proceeding and the making of this stipulation shall not in any manner 
prejudice any consenting party to any subsequent proceedings.

    Dated: May 31, 1996.

    For the Plaintiff:
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General.
Joel I. Klein,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director of Operations.
Robert E. Connolly,
Chief, Middle Atlantic Office.

    For the Defendants:
A&L Mayer Associates, Inc.
A&L Mayer, Inc.
Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V.

    Respectfully submitted,
Edward S. Panek.
Michelle A. Pionkowski.
Roger L. Currier.
Joseph Muoio,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Middle 
Atlantic Office, The Curtis Center, Suite 650W, 7th & Walnut Streets, 
Philadelphia, PA 19106, Tel.: (215) 597-7401.
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania
    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. A&L Mayer Associates, 
Inc.; and Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V., Defendants. Civil Action 
No. 96-CV-4044, Judge Jay C. Waldman.

Final Judgment

    Plaintiff, the United States of America, filed its complaint on May 
31, 1996. Plaintiff and defendants, by their respective attorneys, have 
consented to the entry of this final judgment without trial or 
adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment shall not 
be evidence against or an admission by any party to any issue of fact 
or law. Defendants have agreed to be bound by the provisions of this 
Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court.
    THEREFORE, before the taking of any testimony and without trial or 
adjudication of any such issue of fact or law herein, and upon consent 
of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:

I

Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action 
and of each of the parties consenting hereto. The complaint states a 
claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 
1, of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.

II

Definitions

    As used in this final judgment:
    A. ``Agreement'' means any contract, agreement or understanding, 
whether oral or written, or any term or provision thereof.
    B. ``Person'' means any individual, corporation, partnership, 
company, sole proprietorship, firm or other legal entity.
    C. ``Tampico fiber'' is a natural vegetable fiber produced by the 
lechuguilla plant and grown in the deserts of northern Mexico. It is 
harvested by individual farmers, processed, finished and exported to 
the United States and worldwide where it is used as brush filling 
material for industrial and consumer brushes. It is available in 
natural white, bleached white, black, gray and a wide variety of 
mixtures.
    D. ``Resale price'' means any price, price floor, price ceiling, 
price range, or any mark-up, formula or margin of profit relating to 
tampico fiber sold by distributors.

III

Applicability

    A. This final judgment applies to each of the defendants and to 
their officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, successors 
and assigns, and to all other persons in active concert or 
participation with any of them who shall have received actual notice of 
this final judgment by personal service or otherwise.
    B. Each defendant shall require, as a condition of any sale or 
other disposition of all, or substantially all, of its stock or assets 
used in the manufacture and/or sale of tampico fiber, that the 
acquiring party/parties agree to be bound by the provisions of this 
final judgment, and that such agreement be filed with the Court.

IV

Prohibited Conduct

    As to tampico fiber imported into or sold in the United States, 
each defendant is enjoined and restrained from:
    A. directly or indirectly entering into, adhering to, maintaining, 
furthering, enforcing or claiming any rights under any contract, 
agreement, arrangement, understanding, plan, program, combination or 
conspiracy with any other processor of tampico fiber or any of such 
processor's distributors for:
    (1) raising, fixing, or maintaining the prices or other terms or 
conditions for the sale or supply of tampico fiber;
    (2) allocating sales volumes, geographic markets or customers for 
tampico fiber;
    (3) taking concerted action to discourage or eliminate new entrants 
into the tampico fiber market; and

[[Page 29765]]

    (4) taking concerted action to restrict or eliminate the supply of 
tampico fiber to any customer;
    B. directly or indirectly entering into, adhering to, maintaining, 
furthering, enforcing or claiming any right under any contract, 
agreement, understanding, plan or program with any distributor to fix 
or maintain the prices at which tampico fiber sold by defendants may be 
resold or offered for sale by any distributor;
    C. directly or indirectly adopting, promulgating, suggesting, 
announcing or establishing any resale pricing policy for tampico fiber;
    D. threatening any distributor with termination or terminating any 
distributor on the basis of that distributor's pricing; or discussing 
with any present or potential distributor any decision regarding 
termination of any other distributor for any reason directly or 
indirectly related to the latter distributor's resale pricing; 
provided, however, that nothing herein shall prohibit any defendant 
from terminating a distributor for any reason other than the 
distributor's resale pricing; and
    E. participating or engaging directly or indirectly through any 
trade association, organization or other group in any activity which is 
prohibited in IV (A)-(D) above.

V

Permitted Communication

    Other than Section IV(A) of this Final Judgment, nothing contained 
in this final judgment shall prohibit a defendant from negotiating, 
arranging or communicating with another processor of tampico fiber, or 
any of such processor's distributors or with any agent, broker or 
representative of such processor or distributor solely in connection 
with bona fide proposed or actual purchases of tampico fiber from, or 
sale of tampico fiber to, that processor or distributor.

VI

Compliance Program

    Each defendant shall establish within thirty (30) days of entry of 
this final judgment and shall thereafter for so long as it or its 
employees are engaged in the manufacture or sale of tampico fiber, 
maintain a program to insure compliance with this final judgment, which 
program shall include at a minimum the following:
    A. designating an Antitrust Compliance Officer responsible, on a 
continuing basis, for achieving compliance with this final judgment and 
promptly reporting to the Department of Justice any violation of the 
final judgment;
    B. within sixty (60) days after the date of entry of this final 
judgment, furnishing a copy thereof to each of its own, its 
subsidiaries', and its affiliates' (1) officers, (2) directors, and (3) 
employees or managing agents who are engaged in, or have responsibility 
for or authority over, the pricing of tampico fiber; and advising and 
informing each such person that his or her violation of this final 
judgment could result in a conviction for contempt of court and 
imprisonment and/or fine;
    C. within seventy five (75) days after the date of entry of this 
final judgment, certifying to the plaintiff whether it has designated 
an Antitrust Compliance Officer and has distributed the final judgment 
in accordance with Sections VI (A) and (B) above;
    D. within thirty (30) days after each such person becomes an 
officer, director, employee or agent of the kind described in Section 
VI (B), furnishing to him or her a copy of this final judgment together 
with the advice specified in Section VI (B);
    E. annually distributing the final judgment to each person 
described in Sections VI (B) and (D);
    F. annually briefing each person described in Sections VI (B) and 
(D) as to defendants's policy regarding compliance with the Sherman Act 
and with this final judgment, including the advice that such defendant 
will make legal advice available to such persons regarding any 
compliance questions or problems;
    G. annually obtaining (and maintaining) from each person described 
in Sections VI (B) and (D) a certification that he or she:
    (1) has read, understands and agrees to abide by the terms of this 
final judgment;
    (2) has been advised of and understands the company's policy with 
respect to compliance with the Sherman Act and the final judgment;
    (3) has been advised and understands that his or her non-compliance 
with the final judgment may result in conviction for criminal contempt 
of court and imprisonment and/or fine; and
    (4) is not aware of any violation of the final judgment that has 
not been reported to the Antitrust Compliance Officer; and
    H. on or about each anniversary date of the entry of the final 
judgment, submitting to the plaintiff an annual declaration as to the 
fact and manner of its compliance with this final judgment.

VII

Inspection and Compliance

    For the purpose of determining or securing compliance with this 
final judgment and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from 
time to time:
    A. duly authorized representatives of the Department of Justice 
shall, upon written request of the Attorney General or of the Assistant 
Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable 
notice to a defendant made to its principal office, be permitted:
    (1) access, during office hours of such defendant, to inspect and 
copy all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other 
records and documents in the possession or under the control of such 
defendant, which may have counsel present, relating to any matters 
contained in this final judgment; and
    (2) subject to the reasonable convenience of such defendant and 
without restraint or interference from it, to interview officers, 
employees and agents of such defendant, who may have counsel present, 
regarding any such matters;
    B. upon the written request of the Attorney General or of the 
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division made to 
a defendant's principal office, such defendant shall submit such 
written reports, under oath if requested, with respect to any of the 
matters contained in this final judgment, as may be requested;
    C. no information or documents obtained by the means provided in 
this Section VII of the final judgment shall be divulged by any 
representative of the Department of Justice to any person other than a 
duly authorized representative of the Executive Branch of the United 
States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United 
States is a party, or for the purpose of securing compliance with this 
final judgment, or as otherwise required by law;
    D. if at the time information or documents are furnished by a 
defendant to plaintiff, such defendant represents and identifies in 
writing the material in any such information or documents to which a 
claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, and such defendant marks each pertinent page 
of such material, ``Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,'' then ten (10) days notice 
shall be given by plaintiff to such defendant prior to divulging such 
material in any legal processing (other than a grand jury

[[Page 29766]]

proceeding) to which such defendant is not a party; and
    E. nothing set forth in this final judgment shall prevent the 
Antitrust Division from utilizing other investigative alternatives, 
such as Civil Investigative Demand process provided by 15 U.S.C. 
Secs. 1311-1314 or a federal grand jury, to determine if the defendant 
has complied with this final judgment.

VIII

Retention of Jurisdiction

    Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of enabling 
any of the parties to this final judgment to apply to this Court at any 
time for such further orders or directions as may be necessary or 
appropriate for the construction or carrying out of this final 
judgment, for the modification of any of the provisions hereof, for the 
enforcement of compliance herewith, and for the punishment of 
violations hereof.

IX

Ten-Year Expiration

    This final judgment will expire on the tenth anniversary of its 
date of entry.

X

Public Interest

    Entry of this final judgment is in the public interest.

    Dated: ____________

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania
    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. A&L Mayer Associates, 
Inc.; A&L Mayer, Inc.; and Fibras Saltillo, S.A. DE C.V., 
Defendants. Civil Action No. 96-CV-4044, Judge Jay C. Waldman.

Competitive Impact Statement

    Pursuant to Section 2 of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act 
(``APPA''), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b), the United States files this 
Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed final judgment as 
to United States v. A&L Mayer Associates, Inc., et al., submitted for 
entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I

Nature and Purpose of the Proceedings

    On ________, the United States filed a civil antitrust complaint 
alleging that under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 4, the above-named defendants combined and conspired with others 
from at least as early as January 1990 to April 1995, to lessen and 
eliminate competition in the sale of tampico fiber in the United 
States, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. 
A companion criminal information against A&L Mayer Associates, Inc. was 
filed on ________. The civil complaint alleges that as part of the 
conspiracy, the defendants and co-conspirators among other things:
    (a) fixed the prices at which tampico fiber was imported into the 
United States;
    (b) fixed the resale prices for tampico fiber charged by their 
exclusive United States distributors; and
    (c) allocated sales between such distributors.
    The complaint seeks a judgment by the Court declaring that the 
defendants engaged in unlawful combinations and conspiracies in 
restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act. It also seeks an 
order by the Court to enjoin and restrain the defendants from any such 
activities or other activities having a similar purpose or effect in 
the future.
    The United States and defendants have stipulated that the proposed 
final judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA, unless 
the United States withdraws its consent.
    The Court's entry of the proposed final judgment will terminate 
this civil action against these defendants, except that the Court will 
retain jurisdiction over the matter for possible further proceedings to 
construe, modify or enforce the judgment, or to punish violations of 
any of its provisions.

II

Description of the Practices Giving Rise to the Alleged Violations of 
the Antitrust Laws

    As defined in the complaint, tampico fiber is a natural vegetable 
fiber produced by the lechuguilla plant and grown in the deserts of 
northern Mexico. It is harvested by individual farmers, processed, 
finished and exported worldwide, where it is used as brush filling 
material for industrial and consumer brushes. It is available in 
natural white, bleached white, black, gray and a wide variety of 
mixtures.
    The complaint further alleges that the defendant corporations 
accounted for aggregate United States sales of tampico of approximately 
$10 million during the period January of 1990 through April of 1995. 
During the period of time covered by the complaint the defendants sold 
and shipped substantial quantities of tampico fiber in a continuous and 
uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce from the processing facility 
of Fibras Saltillo, S.A. de C.V. in Mexico through A&L Mayer 
Associates, Inc., with offices in New York, to their exclusive United 
States distributor and the distributor's customers throughout the 
United States, including those located in the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania. Similarly, the complaint alleges that non-defendant co-
conspirators sold and shipped additional substantial quantities of 
tampico fiber in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate 
commerce from another processing facility in Mexico through their 
exclusive United States distributor to customers through the United 
States, including those located in the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania.
    The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in three forms of 
concerted action and states three causes of action: (1) an agreement to 
fix import prices, (2) an agreement to fix resale prices, and (3) an 
agreement to allocate sales. Essentially, the complaint alleges that 
defendants and their co-conspirators fixed the prices at which tampico 
fiber was sold to their two exclusive United States distributors, 
agreed on resale prices with those two distributors and agreed to a 
percentage allocation of sales volume between those distributors.
    The defendants and their co-conspirators went far beyond suggesting 
resale prices for their distributors. Resale price sheets were provided 
to the two United States distributors by the defendants and co-
conspirators. As a condition of becoming and remaining a United States 
distributor of tampico, one of these distributors agreed by written 
contract with one of the defendants to sell at the prices listed on the 
price sheet. From at least January 1990 on, both of the two exclusive 
United States' distributors of tampico had identical price sheets 
supplied by the defendants and co-conspirators, and the majority of 
sales were made by those distributors at these list prices or other 
agreed upon prices.
    The use of resale price maintenance by the defendants and co-
conspirators was designed to and had the effect of monitoring and 
enforcing the horizontal price-fixing and sales volume allocation 
agreements between the defendants and co-conspirators. The defendants' 
conduct had the effect of lessening or eliminating competition between 
the two United States distributors of tampico in order to maintain 
prices at artificially high and non-competitive levels.
    In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants and their co-
conspirators, among other things, periodically met, discussed and 
agreed to new import and resale prices for tampico fiber, and met, 
discussed and compared the annual

[[Page 29767]]

sales volumes of their United States distributors to ensure they were 
at or about the percentages the defendants and co-conspirators had 
agreed upon for each.

III

Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment

    The United States and the defendants have stipulated that a final 
judgment, in the form filed with the Court, may be entered by the Court 
at any time after compliance with the APPA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16 (b)-(h). 
The proposed final judgment provides that the entry of the final 
judgment does not constitute any evidence against or an admission by 
any party with respect to any issue of fact or law. Under the 
provisions of Section 2(e) of the APPA, entry of the proposed final 
judgment is conditioned upon the Court finding that its entry will be 
in the public interest.
    The United States has filed a criminal information charging A&L 
Mayer Associates, Inc. and unnamed co-conspirators with a conspiracy to 
fix the prices and allocate sales of tampico fiber imported into and 
sold in the United States, in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1).
    The United States does not routinely file both civil and criminal 
cases involving the same underlying conduct. It is appropriate to do so 
in this case, however, because of the extent of the control of the 
market by a small number of companies conspiring to eliminate price 
competition in the sale of tampico fiber in the United States through a 
comprehensive scheme of fixing the price of imported tampico, 
allocating sales volumes between their exclusive distributors, and 
dictating the prices at which those distributors resold tampico fiber 
within the United States.
    The proposed final judgment contains two principal forms of relief. 
First, the defendants are enjoined from repeating the behavior which 
characterized the tampico fiber conspiracy and from certain other 
conduct that could have similar anticompetitive effects. Second, the 
proposed final judgment places affirmative burdens on the defendants to 
pursue a compliance program directed toward avoiding a repetition of 
the tampico fiber conspiracy.

A. Prohibited Conduct

    Section IV of the proposed final judgment broadly enjoins each 
defendant from conspiring to fix prices, allocate sales, discourage new 
entrants, or otherwise restrict or eliminate the supply of tampico 
fiber sold to any customer in the United States, (IV (A)); from 
engaging in any conduct to set or control the resale prices of any 
distributor to their customers (IV (B), (C) and (D)); and from joining 
any group whose aims or activities are prohibited by Sections IV (A)-
(D) of the final judgment (IV (E)). Specifically, as regards tampico 
fiber sold in the United States, Sections IV (A)-(E) of the proposed 
final judgment provide as follows.
    Section IV(A) of the proposed final judgment enjoins the defendants 
from directly or indirectly agreeing with any other processor of 
tampico fiber or such processor's distributors to (1) Raise, fix, or 
maintain the prices or other terms or conditions for the sale or supply 
of tampico fiber; (2) allocate sales volumes, geographic markets or 
customers for tampico; (3) discourage or eliminate new entrants in the 
tampico fiber market; and (4) restrict or eliminate the supply of 
tampico fiber to any customer.
    Section IV(B) of the proposed final judgment enjoins the defendants 
from directly or indirectly entering into, adhering to, maintaining, 
furthering, enforcing or claiming any right under any contract, 
agreement, understanding, plan or program with any distributor to fix 
or maintain the prices at which tampico fiber sold by defendants may be 
resold or offered for sale by an distributor.
    Section IV(C) of the proposed final judgment enjoins the defendants 
from directly or indirectly adopting, promulgating, suggesting, 
announcing or establishing any resale pricing policy for tampico fiber.
    Section IV(D) of the proposed final judgment enjoins the defendants 
from threatening any distributor with termination or terminating any 
distributor for that distributor's pricing; or discussing with any 
present or potential distributor any decision regarding termination of 
any other distributor for any reason directly or indirectly related to 
the latter distributor's resale pricing; provided, however, that 
nothing herein shall prohibit any defendant from terminating a 
distributor for any reasons other than the distributor's pricing.
    Section IV (E) of the proposed final judgment enjoins the 
defendants from participating or engaging, directly or indirectly 
through any trade association, organization or other group, in any 
activity which is prohibited in Sections IV (A)-(D) of the proposed 
final judgment.

B. Permitted Communications

    The only exception to the board prohibitions of Section IV of the 
proposed final judgment is contained in Section V and concerns any 
necessary negotiations, arrangements or communications with another 
processor or such processor's distributors or any agent, broker or 
representative of such processor or distributor in connection with bona 
fide proposed or actual purchases of tampico fiber from or sales of 
tampico fiber to that processor or distributor.

C. Defendants' Affirmative Obligations

    Section VI requires that within thirty (30) days of entry of the 
final judgment, the defendants adopt or pursue an affirmative 
compliance program directed toward ensuring that their employees comply 
with the antitrust laws. More specifically, the program must include 
the designation of an Antitrust Compliance Officer responsible for 
compliance with the final judgment and reporting any violations of its 
terms. It further requires that each defendant furnish a copy of the 
final judgment to each of its officers and directors and each of its 
employees who is engaged in or has responsibility for or authority over 
pricing of tampico fiber within sixty (60) days of the date of entry, 
and to certify that it has distributed those copies and designated an 
Antitrust Compliance officer within seventy-five (75) days. Copies of 
the final judgment also must be distributed to anyone who becomes such 
an officer, director or employee within thirty (30) days of holding 
that position and to all such individuals annually.
    Furthermore , Section VI require each defendant to brief each 
officer, director and employee engaged in or having responsibility over 
pricing of tampico fiber as to the defendant's policy regarding 
compliance with the Sherman Act and with the final judgment, including 
the advice that his or her violation of the final judgment could result 
in a conviction for contempt of court and imprisonment and/or fine and 
that the defendant will make legal advice available to such persons 
regarding compliance questions or problems. The defendants annually 
must obtain (and maintain) certifications from each such person that 
the aforementioned briefing, advice and a copy of the final judgment 
were received and understood and that he or she is not aware of any 
violation of the final judgment that has not been reported to the 
Antitrust Compliance Officer. Finally,each defendant must submit to the 
plaintiff an annual declaration as to the fact and manner of its 
compliance with the final judgment.
    Under Section VII of the final judgment, the Justice Department 
will have access, upon reasonable notice, to

[[Page 29768]]

the defendants' records and personnel in order to determine defendants' 
compliance with the judgment.

D. Scope of the Proposed Judgment

(1) Persons Bound by the Decree
    The proposed judgment expressly provides in Section III that its 
provisions apply to each of the defendants and each of their officers, 
directors, agents and employees, subsidiaries, successors and assigns 
and to all other persons who receive actual notice of the terms of 
judgment.
    In addition, Section III of the judgment prohibits each of the 
defendants from selling or transferring all or substantially all of its 
stock or assets used in its tampico fiber business unless the acquiring 
party files with the Court its consent to be bound by the provisions of 
the judgment.
(2) Duration of the Judgment
    Section IX provides that the judgment will expire on the tenth 
anniversary of its entry.

Effect of the Proposed Judgment on Competition

    The prohibition terms of Section IV of the judgment are designed to 
ensure that each defendant will act independently in determining the 
prices, and terms and conditions at which it will sell or offer to sell 
tampico fiber, and that there will be no conspirational restraints 
(horizontal or vertical) in the tampico fiber market. The affirmative 
obligations of Sections VI and VII are designed to insure that each 
corporate defendant's employees are aware of their obligations under 
the decree in order to avoid a repetition of behavior that occurred in 
the tampico fiber industry during the conspiracy period. Compliance 
with the proposed judgment will prevent price collusion, allocation of 
sales, markets and customers, concerted activities in restricting new 
entrants and customers, and resale price restraints by each of the 
defendants with each other and with other tampico fiber processors and/
or distributors.

IV

Remedies Available to Potential Private Plaintiffs

    After entry of the proposed final judgment, any potential private 
plaintiff who might have been damaged by the alleged violation will 
retain the same right to sue for monetary damages and any other legal 
and equitable remedies which he/she may have had if the proposed 
judgment had not been entered. The proposed judgment may not be used, 
however, as prima facie evidence in private litigation, pursuant to 
Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(a).

V

Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Consent Judgment

    The proposed final judgment is subject to a stipulation between the 
government and the defendants which provides that the government may 
withdraw its consent to the proposed judgment any time before the Court 
has found that entry of the proposed judgment is in the public 
interest. By its terms, the proposed judgment provides for the Court's 
retention of jurisdiction of this action in order to permit any of the 
parties to apply to the Court for such orders as may be necessary or 
appropriate for the modification of the final judgment.
    As provided by the APPA (15 U.S.C. Sec. 16), any person wishing to 
comment upon the proposed judgment may, for a sixty-day (60) period 
subsequent to the publishing of this document in the Federal Register, 
submit written comments to the United States Department of Justice, 
Antitrust Division, Attention: Robert E. Connolly, Chief, Middle 
Atlantic Office, Suite 650 West, 7th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19106. Such comments and the government's response to them 
will be filed with the Court and published in the Federal Register. The 
government will evaluate all such comments to determine whether there 
is any reason for withdrawal of its consent to the proposed judgment.

VI

Alternative to the Proposed Final Judgment

    The alternative to the proposed final judgment considered by the 
Antitrust Division was a full trial of the issues on the merits and 
relief. The Division considers the substantive language of the proposed 
judgment to be of sufficient scope and effectiveness to make litigation 
on the issues unnecessary, as the judgment provides appropriate relief 
against the violations alleged in the complaint.

VII

Determinative Materials and Documents

    No materials or documents were considered determinative by the 
United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Therefore, 
none are being filed pursuant to the APPA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b).

    Dated: May 31, 1996.
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General.
Joel I. Klein,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director of Operations.
Robert E. Connolly,
Chief, Middle Atlantic Office.

    Respectfully submitted,

Edward S. Panek.
Michelle A. Pionkowski.
Roger L. Currier.
Joseph Muoio,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Middle 
Atlantic Office, The Curtis Center, Suite 650W, 7th & Walnut Streets, 
Philadelphia, PA 19106, Tel.: (215) 597-7401.
[FR Doc. 96-14473 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M