Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ) 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ) 

Washington, DC 20580, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

4018 Westhollow Parkway ) 

Houston, TX 77082 ) 

Defendant. ) 

~~~~~ ~~~) 

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENAL TIES PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 5(/) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT 

Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), by its undersigned attorneys, alleges as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 16(a)(l) and 5(!) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 56(a)(l) and 45(!), for civil penalties and other equitable 

relief for violations of a final order to cease and desist issued by the Federal Trade 

Commission. 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(!) and 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 (a), 1345 and 1355. 

3. Venue is properly based in this District by virtue of Defendant's consent, in the Stipulation 

relating hereto, to the maintenance of this action and entry of the Final Judgment in this 

District. 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 8

4. Defendant Star Pipe Products, Ltd. ("Star Pipe") is a limited partnership organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business located at 

4018 Westhollow Parkway, Houston, Texas 77082. Star Pipe is and has been at all times 

pertinent to this proceeding engaged in the manufacture and distribution of iron products for 

the water and wastewater industry. Star Pipe, at all times relevant to this proceeding, has 

been engaged in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 44. 

5. Section 5([) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45([), authorizes this Court to award monetary civil 

penalties, to grant mandatory injunctions, and to order such other and further equitable relief 

as appropriate for each violation of a Final Order of the FTC. The Court may award a civil 

penalty for each violation, or for each day of a continuing violation. Pursuant to the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-134, § 31001(s) (amending the Federal 

Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §2461), and Federal Trade 

Commission Rule 1.98, 16 C.F .R. § 1.98, the maximum civil penalty for violations occurring 

on or after February 10, 2009, is $16,000 per violation, or per day of a continuing violation. 

PRIOR FTC PROCEEDING 

6. This complaint alleges violations of the final order issued against Star Pipe by the FTC on 

May 8, 2012, in In the Matter of Mc Wane, Inc., and Star Pipe Products, Ltd., 2012-2 Trade 

Cases iJ78,061 (Aug. 9, 2012). 

7. In that case, the FTC issued an administrative complaint alleging that Star Pipe and others 

violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. 

8. The administrative complaint alleged that Star Pipe, along with its competitors Sigma 

Corporation ("Sigma"), and Mc Wane, Inc.("McWane"), conspired to raise and stabilize the 

2 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 3 of 8

prices at which ductile iron pipe fittings ("DIPF") are sold in the United States. The 

administrative complaint further alleged that Mc Wane, Sigma, and Star Pipe exchanged sales 

data in order to facilitate this price coordination. The behavior, as alleged in the 

administrative complaint, constituted a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. 

9. Prior to the filing of the administrative complaint against Star Pipe and Mc Wane, Sigma 

entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order to settle the matter. The Commission 

placed the Agreement on the public record for receipt of comments on January 4, 2012, and 

issued the Consent Order against Sigma on February 27, 2012, In the Matter of Sigma Corp., 

FTC Docket No. C-4347, (2012). 

10. The FTC issued its administrative complaint against Star Pipe and Mc Wane on January 4, 

2012. Star Pipe denied the allegations of the administrative complaint, but agreed to settle 

shortly after the administrative complaint was issued. On February 23, 2012, prior to the 

taking of testimony, the FTC issued its order withdrawing all claims in the administrative 

complaint against Star Pipe for the purpose of considering a proposed consent agreement. 

On March 26, 2012, the FTC placed the Agreement Containing Consent Order reached with 

Star Pipe on the public record for receipt of comments; and on May 8, 2012, the FTC issued 

its Final Order ("Order") against Star Pipe. The Order was served upon Star Pipe and 

became final on May 14, 2012, and is now and has been at all times since May 14, 2012, in 

full force and effect. On May 21, 2012, the FTC issued its order permanently withdrawing 

all claims against Star Pipe from adjudication. 

11. In addition to prohibiting the illegal conduct alleged in the FTC's administrative complaint, 

the Order contains additional requirements. 

3 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 4 of 8

12. Paragraph II.B. prohibits Star Pipe, with regard to DIPF, from "entering into, adhering to, 

participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, or otherwise facilitating 

any combination, conspiracy, agreement, or understanding between or among any 

competitors to communicate or exchange competitively sensitive information." The Order 

defines "communicate" to mean any transfer or dissemination of any competitor's 

information regarding the "cost, price, output, or customers of or for DIPF ." The Order 

defines "competitively sensitive information" to mean "any information regarding the cost, 

price, output, or customers of or for DIPF" marketed by Star Pipe or any of its competitors, 

whether the information is prospective, current or historical, or aggregated or disaggregated. 

13. Paragraph ILE, inter alia, prohibits Star Pipe from attempting to engage in any of the 

activities prohibited by Paragraph II.B. 

14. Paragraph IV.A. of the Order requires Star Pipe, within sixty (60) days from the date the 

Order becomes final, to "distribute by first-class mail, return receipt requested, or by 

electronic mail with return confirmation, a copy of this Order with the Complaint, to each of 

its officers, directors, and Designated Managers." 

15. Paragraph IV.C. of the Order requires any person receiving the distribution required by 

Paragarph IV .A. to sign and submit to Star Pipe a statement confirming that the distribution 

was read and understood and "that non-compliance with the Order may subject Respondent 

to penalties for violation of the Order." On July 4, 2012, Daniel W. McCutcheon, who was 

at the time and continues to be, President of Star Pipe, submitted a return email 

acknowledging receipt of the required distribution. 

16. Paragraph V. of the Order requires Star Pipe for five years to file annual verified written 

reports of compliance with the Order. Paragraph V.D. specifies that such reports are to 

4 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 5 of 8

include a detailed description of the manner and form in which Star Pipe has complied and is 

complying with the Order. 

17. On or about May 10, 2013, May 12, 2014, and May 13, 2015, Star Pipe submitted the 

required annual reports of compliance to the FTC. These reports did not inform the FTC that 

Star Pipe was receiving competitively sensitive information from a competitor. 

VIOLATIONS ALLEGED 

FIRST COUNT 

Star Pipe Violated Paragraph ILE. of the Order by Attempting to Participate in an 

Understanding Between Competitors to Communicate Competitively Sensitive Information 

18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 17, supra. 

19. Beginning on or about August 17, 2012, an independent sales representative for Sigma, a 

Star Pipe competitor, began forwarding, without the knowledge of Sigma, to Star Pipe's 

National Market Manager at his Star Pipe email address confidential DIPF information that 

the agent received in the course of his work for Sigma. The independent sales 

representative 's email specifically noted the confidential status of the information being sent. 

20. This information sent to Star Pipe included, inter alia, the identity of all customers in that 

sales representative's region and their purchases for the day prior to issuance of the report. 

For each item sold to each customer, the reports included the item, the quantity sold, the 

profit margin and the multiplier applied to calculate the price. Although each competitor for 

the sale of DIPF periodically publishes and disseminates a "multiplier" (a percentage of the 

list price) that it anticipates applying to determine pricing, the Sigma multiplier sent to Star 

Pipe was the multiplier actually applied to each customer's particular sale, a highly 

confidential number and one determined only through customer negotiations. 

5 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 6 of 8

21. Sigma's independent sales representative continued until July 2, 2013, to forward, without 

Sigma's knowledge, Sigma's competitive information to Star Pipe's National Market 

Manager at his Star Pipe email. 

22. Star Pipe's National Market Manager forwarded at least five of the emails containing 

Sigma's competitive information to his private email account and then forwarded at least 

four of those emails with Sigma's competitive information from his private email account to 

the private email account of Star Pipe's President. Star Pipe's President reviewed Sigma's 

competitively sensitive information after he received each email. Star Pipe's President knew 

that Star Pipe's National Market Manager had received Sigma's competitively sensitive 

information from Sigma's independent sales representative. 

23. The conduct alleged in Paragraphs 18 -22 inclusive violated Paragraph ILE. of the Order. 

24. Star Pipe was continuously in violation of Paragraph ILE. of the Order from at least August 

17, 2012, until at least July 2, 2013. 

SECOND COUNT 

Star Pipe Violated Paragraph V. of the Order By Filing Incomplete Compliance Reports 

25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 17, supra. 

26. Since entry of the Order, Star Pipe never informed the FTC that it had been receiving a 

competitor's competitively sensitive information. During this time, Star Pipe has filed three 

annual reports of compliance, none of which contained information relating to emails 

containing competitively sensitive information sent by Sigma's agent to Star Pipe's National 

Market Manager; nor did Star Pipe inform the FTC that some of this information also had 

been forwarded to Star Pipe's President. 

6 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 8

27. Star Pipe was continuously in violation of the Paragraph V. of the Order from at least August 

17, 2012, until the present. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 

28. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Star Pipe violated Paragraph II.E. of the 

Order for each day it was in receipt of Sigma's competitively sensitive information from 

August 17, 2012, until July 2, 2013; 

29. That the Court adjudge and decree that Defendant Star Pipe violated Paragraph V. of the 

Order each day since August 17, 2012, by failing to notify the FTC of its receipt of Sigma's 

competitively sensitive information; 

30. That the Court enter judgment against Star Pipe for an appropriate civil penalty as provided 

by law, 15 U.S.C. § 45(1), and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1966, Pub. L. 104-

134 § 3 lOOl(s)(amending the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 

U.S.C.§ 2461 note), and Federal Trade Commission Rule 1.98, 16 C.F.R. § 1.98; 

31. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and 

32. That Plaintiff be awarded its costs of this suit. 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION: 

(',L,,._,,,_,L- /(. ~it-~ Anne R. Schenof (j 

Bureau of Competition 

D.C. Bar No. 185454 

7 

Deborah L. Feinstein 

Director 

Bureau of Competition 

D.C. Bar No. 412109 
Case 1:16-cv-00755 Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 8 of 8

Bureau of Competition 

D.C. Bar No. 939207 

Daniel P. Ducore 

Assistant Director 

Bureau of Competition 

D.C. Bar No. 933721 

8 

~ Marian R. Bruno 

Deputy Director 

D.C. Bar No. 414126