Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34867

Finally, prior notice to the

Department of any acquisition by a

defendant of a laminated tube

competitor imposing non-compete

obligations would ensure that the

Department has an opportunity to get

discovery and challenge any such

arrangement deemed anticompetitive.

IV

Remedies Available to Private Litigants

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15

U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who

has been injured as a result of conduct

prohibited by the antitrust laws may

bring suit in federal court to recover

three times the damages suffered, as

well as costs and reasonable attorney’s

fees. Entry of the proposed Final

Judgment will neither impair nor assist

the bringing of such actions. Under the

provisions of section 5(a) of the Clayton

Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the Judgment has

no prima facie effect in any subsequent

lawsuits that may be brought against the

defendants in the matter.

V

Procedures Available for Modification of

the Proposed Judgment

As provided by the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, any

person believing that the proposed Final

Judgment should be modified may

submit written comments to Mary Jean

Moltenbrey, Chief, Civil Task Force,

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 325 7th Street, NW., Suite 300,

Washington, DC 20530, within the 60-

day period provided by the Act. These

comments, and the Department’s

responses, will be filed with the Court

and published in the Federal Register.

All comments will be given due

consideration by the Department of

Justice, which remains free, pursuant to

a stipulation signed by the United States

and defendants, to withdraw its consent

to the proposed Judgment at any time

prior to entry. Section VII of the

proposed Final Judgment provides that

the Court retains jurisdiction over this

action, and the parties may apply to the

Court for any order necessary or

appropriate for modification,

interpretation, or enforcement of the

Final Judgment.

VI

Determinative Materials/Documents

No materials or documents of the type

described in section 2(b) of the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.

16(b), were considered by the United

States in formulating the proposed Final

Judgment. However, a letter, dated June

21, 1996, from plaintiff’s counsel to

counsel for defendant KMK,

acknowledging KMK’s right under

current law to seek relief from the

compliance provisions of Section VI in

the event it believes a conflict has arisen

between any request for information or

documents under those provisions and

foreign law, was considered

determinative by KMK in agreeing to the

proposed Judgment and is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

VII

Alternative to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The alternative to the proposed Final

Judgment is a full trial on the merits.

While the Department is confident it

would succeed in such a trial, this case

involves difficult issues of law and fact,

as well as obvious risks and costs to the

United States, and success is not

certain. The Final Judgment to which

the parties have agreed provides

virtually all the relief the Government

sought in its complaint, and that relief

will fully and effectively open the

markets involved to competition.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Liddle,

Scott A. Scheele,

DC Bar No. 429061, Attorneys, U.S.

Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325

7th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

Liberty Place Building, Washington, DC

20530

June 21, 1996.

MJM:RJZ

60–3083–0001

C. Loring Jetton, Jr., Esq.,

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037–1420, Fax

(202) 663–6463.

Re: KMK Maschinen AG/Laminated Tubes

Dear Mr. Jetton: During our negotiations of

a consent decree in this case, you suggested

the possibility that a conflict could arise

between the compliance provisions in

Section VI of the proposed decree, which

authorize the Assistant Attorney General to

inspect documents or conduct interviews and

to request written reports, and laws or orders

of foreign governments, which appear to

prohibit compliance with such provisions. Of

course, we would attempt to work with KMK

to avoid any such conflict in exercising our

rights under Section VI. In the event that we

could not reach agreement with you,

however, KMK would be free to seek relief

from the decree court from its obligations to

comply with any Section VI request. Under

the principles set forth in Societe

Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958)

and its progeny, KMK would have the burden

of showing that (1) compliance with the

request is prohibited by foreign law, (2) KMK

was not in any way responsible for creating

the conflict between the judgment and

foreign law, and (3) KMK has exercised its

best efforts to obtain any waiver or

permission from the foreign government and

other relevant person(s) that would enable it

to comply with the request.

Sincerely yours,

Robert J. Zastrow,

Assistant Chief, Civil Task Force.

[FR Doc. 96–16889 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

United States v. AnchorShade, Inc.,

No. 96–08426, S.D. Fla., filed June 20,

1996

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed

Final Judgment, Stipulation and

Competitive Impact Statement have

been filed with the United States

District Court for the Southern District

of Florida in the above-captioned case.

On June 20, 1996, the United States

filed a complaint to prevent and restrain

the defendant from violating Section 1

of the Sherman Act. The complaint

alleges that the defendant conspired to

fix the price of outdoor umbrellas sold

by the defendant to dealers throughout

the United States by obtaining

agreements from dealers to maintain the

minimum resale price as a condition of

receiving outdoor umbrellas from the

defendant, and permitting dealers to

discount in order to meet competition,

but only if they obtained written

approval in advance from AnchorShade,

Inc. As a result of the conspiracy, the

resale price of outdoor umbrellas was

fixed and competition among dealers of

outdoor umbrellas was restrained.

The proposed Final Judgment

prohibits the defendant from entering

into or maintaining any unlawful

agreement with any dealer that fixes the

price at which the dealer may sell the

defendant’s outdoor umbrellas to

consumers; adopting any resale pricing

policy wherein the defendant (1) Will

sell only to a dealer that prices the

defendant’s outdoor umbrellas at or

above the defendant’s suggested resale

price, and/or (2) will terminate any

dealer for pricing below such suggested

resale price; and threatening any dealer

with termination or terminating any

dealer from pricing below the

defendant’s suggested resale price, and

discussing with any dealer any decision

regarding termination of any other

dealer for any reason related to pricing

below the defendant’s suggested resale

price.

Public comment is invited within the

statutory 60-day period. Such comments
34868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

will be published in the Federal

Register and filed with the Court.

Comments should be addressed to

Ralph T. Giordano, Chief, New York

Office, U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 3630, New York, New York 10278

(telephone: (212) 264–0390).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

United States District Court Southern

District of Florida

In the matter of; UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANCHORSHADE,

INC., Defendant; Civil Action No. 96–08426,

Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley.

Stipulation

It is stipulated by and between the

undersigned parties, by their respective

attorneys, that:

1. The parties to this Stipulation

consent that a Final Judgment in the

form attached may be filed and entered

by the Court, upon any party’s or the

Court’s own motion, at any time after

compliance with the requirements of the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act

(15 U.S.C. 16), without further notice to

any party or other proceedings,

provided that plaintiff has not

withdrawn its consent, which it may do

at any time before entry of the proposed

Final Judgment by serving notice on the

defendant and by filing that notice with

the Court.

2. If plaintiff withdraws its consent or

the proposed Final Judgment is not

entered pursuant to this Stipulation,

this Stipulation shall be of no effect

whatever and its making shall be

without prejudice to any party in this or

any other proceeding.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

For the Plaintiff:

Anne K. Bingaman,

Assistant Attorney General.

Joel I. Klein,

Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Rebecca P. Dick,

Deputy Director of Operations.

Ralph T. Giordano,

Chief, New York Office.

For the Defendant:

Barry L. Haley,

Counsel for AnchorShade, Inc., Malin, Haley,

DiMaggio and Crosby, P.A., Suite 1609, 1

East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale,

Florida 33301.

Patricia L. Jannaco,

Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 3630, New York, New York 10278, (212)

264–0660.

Final Judgment

Plaintiff, United States of America,

having filed its complaint herein on

, and plaintiff and defendant,

AnchorShade, Inc., having consented to

the entry of this Final Judgment without

trial or adjudication of any issue of fact

or law herein and without this Final

Judgment constituting any evidence

against or an admission by any party

with respect to any such issue;

And whereas defendant has agreed to

be bound by the provisions of this Final

Judgment pending its approval by the

Court;

Now, THEREFORE, before the taking

of any testimony and without trial or

adjudication of any issue of fact or law

herein, and upon consent of the parties

hereto, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

I

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction of the

subject matter of this action and of the

party consenting hereto. The complaint

states a claim upon which relief may be

granted against defendant under Section

1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

II

Definitions

As used in this Final Judgment:

A. ‘‘Person’’ means any individual,

corporation, partnership, company, sole

proprietorship, firm or other legal

entity.

B. ‘‘Dealer’’ means any person, not

wholly owned by AnchorShade, Inc.,

who purchases or acquires outdoor

umbrellas manufactured or sold by

AnchorShade, Inc. for resale.

C. ‘‘Outdoor umbrellas’’ means

collapsible devices that provide shade

for protection against sun or weather.

D. ‘‘Resale price’’ means any price,

price floor, price ceiling, price range, or

any mark-up, formula or margin of

profit relating to outdoor umbrellas sold

by dealers.

III

Applicability

A. This Final Judgment applies to

defendant and to each of its 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. Defendant shall require, as a

condition of the sale of all or

substantially all of its assets or stock,

that the acquiring party agree to be

bound by the provisions of this Final

Judgment.

IV

Prohibited Conduct

A. Defendant is hereby enjoined and

restrained 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 dealer to fix, stabilize or maintain

the resale prices at which outdoor

umbrellas sold or distributed by the

defendant may be sold or offered for

sale in the United States by any dealer.

B. Defendant is further enjoined and

restrained for a period of five years from

the date of entry of this Final Judgment

from directly or indirectly announcing

to the public or to any present or

potential dealer of its outdoor umbrellas

that defendant has or is adopting,

promulgating, suggesting, announcing

or establishing any resale pricing policy

for outdoor umbrellas that provides that:

(1) Defendant will sell only to a dealer

that prices at or above defendant’s

suggested resale price, and/or (2)

defendant will terminate any dealer for

pricing below defendant’s suggested

resale price.

C. Defendant is further enjoined and

restrained for a period of five years from

the date of entry of this Final Judgment

from (1) threatening any dealer with

termination or terminating any dealer

for pricing below the defendant’s

suggested resale price, and (2)

discussing with any present or potential

dealer any decision regarding

termination of any other dealer for any

reason directly or indirectly related to

the latter dealer’s pricing below

defendant’s suggested resale price;

provided, however, that nothing herein

shall prohibit the defendant during this
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34869

five-year period from terminating a

dealer for using any of defendant’s

products to promote the sale of products

manufactured by other companies, or

any other reasons other than pricing

below defendant’s suggested resale

price. Furthermore, nothing in this

paragraph shall be deemed to prohibit

the defendant from adopting suggested

resale prices and communicating such

resale prices to dealers.

V.

Notification Provisions

Defendant is hereby ordered and

directed:

A. To send a written notice, and in

the form attached as Appendix A to this

Final Judgment, a copy of this Final

Judgment, within sixty days of the entry

of this Final Judgment, to each dealer

who purchased outdoor umbrellas from

defendant from January 1, 1992 to the

date of entry of this Final Judgment.

B. To send a written notice, in the

form attached as Appendix A to this

Final Judgment, and a copy of this Final

Judgment, to each dealer who purchases

outdoor umbrellas from defendant

within ten years of entry of this Final

Judgment and who was not previously

given such notice. Such notice shall be

sent within thirty days after the

shipment of outdoor umbrellas is made

to such dealer by defendant.

VI

Compliance Program

Defendant is ordered to establish and

maintain an antitrust compliance

program which shall include

designating, within thirty days of entry

of this Final Judgment, an Antitrust

Compliance Officer with responsibility

for accomplishing the antitrust

compliance program and with the

purpose of achieving compliance with

this Final Judgment. The Antitrust

Compliance Officer shall, on a

continuing basis, supervise the review

of the current and proposed activities of

his or her company to assure that it

complies with this Final Judgment. The

Antitrust Compliance Officer shall be

responsible for accomplishing the

following activities:

A. Furnishing a copy of this Final

Judgment within thirty days of entry of

this Final Judgment to each of

AnchorShade, Inc.’s officers and

directors and each of its employees,

representatives or agents whose duties

include supervisory or direct

responsibility for the sale or advertising

of outdoor umbrellas in the United

States, except those employees whose

functions are purely clerical or manual.

B. Distributing in a timely manner a

copy of this Final Judgment to any

owner, officer or employee who

succeeds to a position described in

Section VI A.

C. Briefing annually those persons

designated in Sections VA A and B on

the meaning and requirements of this

Final Judgment and the antitrust laws.

C. Obtaining from each owner, officer

or employee designated in Section VI A

and B certification that he or she (1) has

read, understands and agrees to abide by

the terms of this Final Judgment; (2)

understands that failure to comply with

this Final Judgment may result in

conviction for criminal contempt of

court; and (3) is not aware of any

violation of the Final Judgment that has

not been reported to the Antitrust

Compliance Officer.

E. Maintaining a record of recipients

from whom the certification in Section

VI D has been obtained.

VII

Certification

A. Within seventy-five days of this

Final Judgment, defendant shall certify

to plaintiff whether the defendant has

designated an Antitrust Compliance

Officer and has distributed the Final

Judgment in accordance with Section VI

A above.

B. For ten years after the entry of this

Final Judgment, on or before its

anniversary date, the defendant shall

file with the plaintiffs an annual

statement as to the fact of its compliance

with the provisions of Sections V and

VI.

C. If defendant’s Antitrust

Compliance Officer learns of any

violations of any of the terms and

conditions contained in this Final

Judgment, defendant shall immediately

notify the plaintiff and forthwith take

appropriate action to terminate or

modify the activity so as to comply with

this Final Judgment.

VIII

Plaintiff Access

A. For the purpose of determining or

securing compliance with this Final

Judgment, and for no other purpose,

duly authorized representatives of

plaintiff shall, upon written request of

the Attorney General or the Assistant

Attorney General in charge of the

Antitrust Division, and on reasonable

notice to the defendant, be permitted,

subject to any legally recognized

privilege:

1. Access during defendant’s office

hours to inspect and copy all records

and documents in the possession or

under the control of defendant, which

may have counsel present, relating to

any matters contained in this Final

Judgment.

2. To interview defendant’s officers,

employees and agents, who may have

counsel present, regarding any such

matters. The interviews shall be subject

to the defendant’s reasonable

convenience.

B. Upon the written request of the

Attorney General or the Assistant

Attorney General in charge of the

Antitrust Division made to defendant at

its principal office, 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, subject

to any legally recognized privilege.

C. No information or documents

obtained by the means provided in this

Section VIII 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 defendant

to plaintiff, 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

defendant marks each pertinent page of

such materials, ‘‘Subject to claim of

protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,’’ then

ten days notice shall be given by

plaintiff to defendant prior to divulging

such material in any legal proceeding

(other than a grand jury proceeding), so

that defendant shall have an

opportunity to apply to this Court for

protection pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

E. Within ten days after receiving any

request under Sections VIII A or VII B,

defendant may apply to this Court for an

order to quash or limit the scope of the

request, and after providing plaintiff

with an opportunity to respond to such

application, this Court shall enter such

order or directions as may be necessary

or appropriate for carrying out and

ensuring compliance with this Final

Judgment.

IX

Duration of Final Judgment

Except as otherwise provided

hereinabove, this Final Judgment shall
34870 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices

remain in effect until ten (10) years from

the date of entry.

X

Construction, Enforcement,

Modification and Compliance

Jurisdiction is retained by the 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 its provisions,

for its enforcement or compliance, and

for the punishment of any violation of

its provisions.

XI

Public Interest

Entry of this Final Judgment is in the

public interest.

Dated: lllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

United States District Court Judge

Appendix A

Dear AnchorShade Dealer. The Antitrust

Division of the United States Department of

Justice filed a civil suit alleging that from at

least as early as December 1992 through at

least February 1995, AnchorShade, Inc.

(AnchorShade) entered into and maintained

agreements with certain dealers to fix and

maintain the resale prices of AnchorShade

products. AnchorShade has agreed, without

admitting any violation of the law and

without being subject to any monetary

penalties, to the entry of a civil Consent

Order prohibiting certain pricing practices in

the United States, including for a period of

five years prohibiting AnchorShade from

announcing to the public or to any dealer

that AnchorShade has a resale pricing policy

that contains any provision that provides that

(a) AnchorShade will sell only to a dealer

that prices at or above AnchorShade’s

suggested resale price, and/or (b)

AnchorShade will terminate any dealer for

pricing below AnchorShade’s suggested

resale price. A copy of the Order is enclosed.

Should you have any questions concerning

this letter, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

lllllllllllllllllllll

Certificate of Service

I, Patricia L. Jannaco, hereby certify

that on the 20th day of June, 1996, I

served the foregoing Stipulation and

Proposed Final Judgment by causing

copies thereof to be hand-delivered to:

Barry L. Haley, Esq., Malin, Haley,

DiMaggio and Crosby, P.A., Suite 1608,

1 East Broward Boulevard, Fort

Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

Patricia L. Jannaco,

Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 3630, New York, New York, 10278,

(212) 264–0660.

United States District Court Southern

District of Florida

In the matter of; United States of America,

Plaintiff, v. Anchorshade, Inc., Defendant;

Civil Action No. 96–08426, Filed: 6/20/96; 15

U.S.C. 1; 15 U.S.C. 4; Judge Daniel T.K.

Hurley.

Competitive Impact Statement

The United States of America,

pursuant to section 2 of the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act (APPA),

15 U.S.C. 16(b), submits this

Competitive Impact Statement in

connection with the proposed Final

Judgment submitted for entry in this

civil antitrust proceeding.

I

Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding

On June 20, 1996, the United States

filed a civil antitrust complaint under

Section 4 of the Sherman Act, as

amended, 15 U.S.C. 4, alleging that the

defendant AnchorShade, Inc. engaged in

a combination and conspiracy, in

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, to fix the price of

outdoor umbrellas sold by

AnchorShade, Inc. to dealers throughout

the United States. The complaint alleges

that, in furtherance of this conspiracy,

AnchorShade, Inc.:

(a) obtained agreements from dealers

to maintain the minimum resale price as

a condition of receiving outdoor

umbrellas from AnchorShade, Inc.;

(b) permitted dealers to discount in

order to meet competition, but only if

the obtained written approval in

advance from AnchorShade, Inc.

The complaint also alleges that the

combination and conspiracy is illegal,

and seeks to enjoin AnchorShade, Inc.

from continuing or renewing the alleged

combination or conspiracy and from

engaging in any combination or

conspiracy or adopting any practice or

plan having a similar purpose or effect.

The United States and AnchorShade,

Inc. 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 the

action, except that the Court will retain

jurisdiction over the matter for possible

further proceedings to construe, modify

or enforce the Final Judgment, or to

punish violations of any of its

provisions.

II

Description of Practices Giving Rise to

the Alleged Violation of the Antitrust

Laws

AnchorShade, Inc., a Florida

corporation, is a seller in the United

States of outdoor umbrellas that are

used on boats to provide shade for

protection against sun or weather.

AnchorShade, Inc. sells outdoor

umbrellas to dealers, who sell them to

consumers. AnchorShade, Inc. further

stipulated that AnchorShade, Inc.

would terminate its relationship with

any dealer who sold its outdoor

umbrellas below the stated resale price.

In December 1992, AnchorShade, Inc.

entered into outright, written

agreements with certain dealers which

required them to sell its outdoor

umbrellas to consumers at a resale price

not lower than $169. The agreements

further required a dealer that wanted to

discount, in order to meet competition,

to obtain advance written permission

from AnchorShade, Inc. These

agreements went well over the line

established in the case law (see,

Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp

Electronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988),

Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service

Corp., 465 U.S.752 (1984), United States

v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)),

and served to keep prices artificially

high.

III

Explanation of the Proposed Final

Judgment

The parties have stipulated that the

proposed Final Judgment may be

entered by the Court at any time after

compliance with the APPA. The

proposed Final Judgment states that it

shall not constitute an admission by

either party with respect to any issue of

fact or law.

The proposed Final Judgment enjoins

any direct or indirect continuation or

renewal of the type of conspiracy

alleged in the complaint. Specifically,

Section IV enjoins and restrains the

defendant from entering into, adhering

to, maintaining, furthering, enforcing or

claiming any right under any contract,

agreement, understanding, plan or

program with any dealer to fix, stabilize,

or maintain the resale prices at which

outdoor umbrellas sold or distributed by

the defendant may be sold or offered for

sale in the United States by any dealer.

The proposed Final Judgment not

only bars AnchorShade, Inc.’s unlawful

practice, but also contains additional

provisions that are remedial in nature.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Notices 34871

Section IV provides that the defendant

is prohibited for five years from

announcing to the public or to any

present or potential dealer of its outdoor

umbrellas that defendant has or is

adopting, promulgating, suggesting,

announcing or establishing any resale

pricing policy for outdoor umbrellas

that provides that: (1) defendant will

sell only to a dealer that prices its

outdoor umbrellas at or above

defendant’s suggested resale price, and/

or (2) defendant will terminate any

dealer for pricing below defendant’s

suggested resale price.

Additionally, the defendant is

prohibited for a period of five years

from the date of entry of the Final

Judgment from (1) threatening any

dealer with termination or terminating

any dealer for pricing below the

defendant’s suggested resale price, and

(2) discussing with any present or

potential dealer any decision regarding

termination of any other dealer for any

reason directly or indirectly related to

the latter dealer’s pricing below

defendant’s suggested resale price.

Section V of the proposed Final

Judgment is designed to ensure that

AnchorShade, Inc.’s dealers are aware of

the limitations imposed on it by the

Final Judgment. Section V requires the

defendant to send notice and copies of

the Final Judgment to each dealer who

purchased outdoor umbrellas from the

defendant from January 1, 1992 to the

date of entry of the Final Judgment. In

addition, the defendant is required to

send notices and copies of the Final

Judgment to every other dealer who

purchases outdoor umbrellas from

AnchorShade, Inc. within ten years of

the date of entry of the proposed Final

Judgment.

Section VI requires the defendant to

set up an antitrust compliance program.

The defendant is also required to

furnish a copy of the Final Judgment to

each of its officers and directors and

each of its nonclerical employees,

representatives or agents with

supervisory or direct responsibility for

the sale or advertising of outdoor

umbrellas in the United States.

In addition, the proposed Final

Judgment provides a method of

determining and securing the

defendant’s compliance with its terms.

Section VIII provides that, upon request

of the Department of Justice, the

defendant shall submit written reports,

under oath, with respect to any of the

matters contained in the Final

Judgment. Additionally, the Department

of Justice is permitted to inspect and

copy all books and records, and to

interview officers, directors, employees

and agents of the defendant.

Section IX makes the Final Judgment

effective for ten years from the date of

its entry.

Section XI of the proposed Final

Judgment states that entry of the Final

Judgment is in the public interest.

Under the provisions of the APPA, entry

of the proposed Final Judgment is

conditional upon a determination by the

Court that the proposed Final Judgment

is in the public interest.

The United States believes that the

proposed Final Judgment is fully

adequate to prevent the continuation or

recurrence of the violation of section 1

of the Sherman Act alleged in the

Complaint, and that the disposition of

this proceeding without further

litigation is appropriate and in the

public interest.

IV

Remedies Available to Potential Private

Litigants

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15,

provides that any person who had been

injured as a result of conduct prohibited

by the antitrust laws may bring suit in

federal court to recover three times the

damages the person has suffered, as well

as costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Entry of the proposed Final Judgment

will neither impair nor assist the

bringing of any private antitrust damage

action. Under the provisions of section

5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment

has no prima facie effect in any

subsequent private lawsuit that may be

brought against the defendant.

V

Procedures Available for Modification of

the Proposed Final Judgment

The United States and the defendant

have stipulated that the proposed Final

Judgment may be entered by the Court

after compliance with the provisions of

the APPA, provided that the United

States has not withdrawn its consent.

The APPA provides a period of at

least sixty days preceding the effective

date of the proposed Final Judgment

within which any person may submit to

the United States written comments

regarding the proposed Final Judgment.

Any person who wants to comment

should do so within sixty days of the

date of publication of this Competitive

Impact Statement in Federal Register.

The United States will evaluate the

comments, determine whether it should

withdraw its consent, and respond to

the comments. The comments and the

responses of the United States will be

filed with the Court and published in

the Federal Register.

Written comments should be

submitted to: Ralph T. Giordano, Chief,

New York Office, Antitrust Division,

United States Department of Justice, 26

Federal Plaza, Room 3630, New York,

New York 10278.

Under Section X of the proposed

Final Judgment, the Court will retain

jurisdiction over this matter for the

purpose of enabling any of the parties to

apply to the Court for such further

orders or directions as may be necessary

or appropriate for the construction,

implementation, modification or

enforcement of the Final Judgment, or

for the punishment of any violations of

the Final Judgment.

VI

Alternatives to the Proposed Final

Judgment

The only alternative to the proposed

Final Judgment considered by the

United States will a full trial on the

merits and on relief. Such litigation

would involve substantial costs to the

United States and is not warranted

because the proposed Final Judgment

provides appropriate relief against the

violations alleged in the Complaint.

VII

Determinative Materials and Documents

No materials or documents were

determinative in formulating the

proposed Final Judgment.

Consequently, the United States has not

attached any such materials or

documents to the proposed Final

Judgment.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia L. Jannaco,

Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States

Department of Justice, 26 Federal Plaza,

Room 3630, New York, New York 10278, (212)

264–0660.

[FR Doc. 96–16890 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Revision of Existing

Collection; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice of Information Collection

Under Review; Affidavit of support.

The proposed information collection

is published to obtain comments from

the public and affected agencies.

Comments are encouraged and will be

accepted for ‘‘sixty days’’ from the date

listed at the top of this page in the

Federal Register.