9344 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices

1 If the respondents do not agree to such

modifications, the Commission may (1) initiate a

proceeding to reopen and modify the Order in

accordance with Rule 3.72(b), 16 CFR 3.72(b), or (2)

commence a new administrative proceeding by

issuing an administrative complaint in accordance

with Rule 3.11, 16 CFR 3.11. See 16 CFR 2.34(e)(2).

require Entergy to develop a planning

document for its daily purchases, which

is required for the other types of

purchases.

These procedures will create a

competitive, transparent process that

will make it easier for regulators to

detect whether Entergy purchased gas

supplies at inflated costs. The planning

document will provide regulators with

Entergy’s operational requirements for

gas and gas transportation. The opensolicitation process will create

competition to supply Entergy and

establish a market price for gas supplies.

Regulators will then be able to compare

Entergy’s operational requirements,

Entergy’s purchases and the market

prices to identify whether Entergy

purchased gas supplies from EKLP at

inflated prices or a level of service that

is above that necessary for effective

operation.

The Order also designates Stephen P.

Reynolds as Implementation Trustee.

Mr. Reynolds has the expertise to

determine the precise information that

should be included in an RFP or other

solicitation package, or information to

be contained in a gas purchasing

planning document. EKLP must bear all

of the trustee’s costs and expenses. The

Implementation Trustee will serve until

the earlier of one year or the date on

which he certifies to the Commission

that the parties have put in place

adequate procedures with the Order and

the Commission accepts such

certification.

V. Effective Date of Order and

Opportunity for Public Comments

The Commission issued the

Complaint and the Decision and Order,

and served them upon the respondents;

at the same time it accepted the Consent

Agreement for public comment. As a

result of this action, the Order has

already become effective. The

Commission, in August 1999, adopted

procedures to allow for immediate

effectiveness of an Order prior to a

public comment period. The

Commission announced that it

‘‘contemplates doing so only in

exceptional cases where, for example, it

believes that the allegedly unlawful

conduct to be prohibited threatens

substantial and imminent public harm.’’

65 FR 46267 (1999).

This case is an appropriate one in

which to issue a final order before

receiving public comment because it

preserves an effective remedy for the

Commission by subjecting the

respondents to civil penalties for failing

to comply with the Order. This ensures

that the safeguards embodied in the

Order will be implemented on schedule.

The Order has also been placed on the

public record for 30 days for receipt of

comments by interested persons, and

comments received during this period

will become part of the public record.

Thereafter, the Commission will review

the Order, and may determine, on the

basis of the comments or otherwise, that

the Order should be modified.1

The Commission anticipates that the

Order, as issued, will resolve the

competitive problems alleged in the

Complaint. The purpose of this analysis

is to invite public comment on the

Order to aid the Commission in

determing whether to modify the Order

in any respect. This analysis is not

intended to constitute an official

interpretation of the Order, nor is it

intended to modify the terms of the

Order in any way.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3191 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 002 3015]

Indigo Investment Systems, Inc., et al.;

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

draft complaint that accompanies the

consent agreement and the terms of the

consent order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janet Evans, FTC/S–4002, 600

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. (202) 326–2125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and § 2.34 of the Commission’s rules

of practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is

hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted, subject to final

approval, by the Commission, has been

placed on the public record for a period

of thirty (30) days. The following

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes the terms of the consent

agreement, and the allegations in the

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for January 25, 2001), on

the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/2001/01/index.htm.’’ A

paper copy can be obtained from the

FTC Public Reference Room, Room H–

130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20580, either in person

or by calling (202) 326–3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania.

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two

paper copies of each comment should

be filed, and should be accompanied, if

possible, by a 31⁄2 inch diskette

containing an electronic copy of the

comment. Such comments or views will

be considered by the Commission and

will be available for inspection and

copying at its principal office in

accordance with § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the

Commission’s rules of practice (16 CFR

4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted, subject to final approval, an

agreement containing a consent order

from Indigo Investment Systems, Inc., a

corporation, and Frank Alfonso, its CEO

(together, ‘‘respondents’’) settling

charges that they engaged in a deceptive

advertising campaign for Indigo, a stock

trading program.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for thirty

(30) days for receipt of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After thirty (30) days,

the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received,

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreement or make

final the agreement’s proposed order.

Respondents sold Indigo through ads

in various media, including investment

magazines, Internet banner ads, and

three websites: www.microstarreserach.com, www.msindigo.com, and

www.indigoinvestor.com. According to

the FTC complaint, respondents’

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices 9345

advertising falsely represented that

Indigo earnings data described in the

ads represent trades that were actually

made and that resulted in the profits

stated in the advertisements; that the

annual returns for the years 1990

through 1999 enumerated in the

advertisements were actually achieved

by users of respondents’ Indigo trading

program; and that users of respondents’

Indigo investment trading program can

reasonably expect to trade with little

financial risk. According to the

complaint, the Inidgo earnings data

described on the site do not represent

trades that were actually made and that

resulted in the profits stated in the

advertisements; instead, the data

represent results of hypothetical trading

and are prepared with the benefit of

hindsight using historical data. The

annual returns for the years 1990

through 1999 enumerated in the

advertisements were not actually

achieved by users of respondents’

Indigo trading program; instead, the

annual returns are based upon

hypothetical trades using historical

data. Indeed, respondents’ Indigo

trading program did not exist until

1995. Additionally, the complaint

alleges, users of respondents’ Indigo

trading program cannot reasonably

expect to trade with little financial risk;

indeed, consumers who trade in stocks

risk a substantial loss of capital, and

trading some Indigo models represents a

high risk speculative investment.

The complaint further alleges that

respondents made several

unsubstantiated claims. It alleges that

respondents’ advertising represented

that most users of respondents’ Indigo

trading program who have invested in

conservative portfolios have achieved

an annual return of 40% over the past

three years; that most users of

respondents’ Indigo trading program

who have invested in aggressive

portfolios with ‘‘hot’’ Internet stocks

have achieved returns of several

hundred percent; that testimonials

appearing in the advertisements for

respondents’ Indigo trading program

reflect the typical or ordinary

experience of members of the public

who use the program; and that users of

respondents’ Indigo trading program can

reasonably expect to achieve substantial

profits on a consistent basis, whether

pursuing a conservative or aggressive

trading strategy. Respondents, however,

lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate

these claims, according to the

complaint.

The proposed consent order contains

provisions designed to prevent

respondents from engaging in similar

acts and practices in the future. Part I of

the order would require, with regard to

the sale of any trading program, that

respondents posses a reasonable basis

for future representations about the

amount of earnings, income, or profit, or

the rate of return, that a user of such

trading program could reasonably

expect to attain; the usual or typical

earnings, income, profit, or rate of

return, achieved by users of such

trading program or any part thereof; or

any financial benefit or other benefit of

any kind from the purchase or use of

such trading program.

Part II of the order prohibits

respondents, in connection with sale of

any trading program, from

misrepresenting that hypothetical or

simulated earnings data represent actual

trading results; that users of such

trading program can reasonably expect

to trade with little risk; or the extent of

risk to which users of the trading

program are exposed.

Part III requires that future benefits

claims be accompanied by the statement

that ‘‘STOCK [or CURRENCY,

OPTIONS, ETC., as applicable]

TRADING involves high risks and YOU

can LOSE a significant amount of

money.’’ Part IV prohibits respondents

from representing that the experience

represented by any user, testimonial or

endorsement of the trading program

represents the typical or ordinary

experience of members of the public

who use the trading program unless

respondents can substantiate the

typicality representation or they

disclose either what the generally

expected results would be for users of

the trading program, or the limited

applicability of the endorser’s

experience to what users may generally

expect to achieve.

The remaining parts of the order

contain standard record keeping, order

distribution, reporting, compliance, and

sunsetting provisions.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comments on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3192 Filed 2–06–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 992 3263]

Sharp Electronics Corp.; Analysis to

Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

draft complaint that accompanies the

consent agreement and the terms of the

consent order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerry O’Brien or Matthew Gold, Federal

Trade Commission, Western Regional

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San

Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356–5266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice

is hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted, subject to final

approval, by the Commission, has been

placed on the public record for a period

of thirty (30) days. The following

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes the terms of the consent

agreement, and the allegations in the

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for January 25, 2001), on

the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/2001/01/index.htm.’’ A

paper copy can be obtained from the

FTC Public Reference Room, Room H–

130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20580, either in

person or by calling (202) 326–3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania,

Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. Two

paper copies of each comment should

be filed, and should be accompanied, if

possible, by a 31⁄2 inch diskette

containing an electronic copy of the

comment. Such comments or views will

be considered by the Commission and