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

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