Opinion ID: 1483125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Order to Cease and Desist.

Text: The order is directed against the Institute, its officers and agents, and 74 corporate respondents. [3] It enjoins respondents:    from entering into, continuing, cooperating in, or carrying out any planned common course of action, understanding, agreement, combination, or conspiracy between and among any two or more of said respondents, or between any one or more of said respondents and others not parties hereto, to do or perform any of the following things: 1. Quoting or selling cement at prices calculated or determined pursuant to or in accordance with the multiple basing-point delivered-price system; or quoting or selling cement pursuant to or in accordance with any other plan or system which results in identical price quotations or prices for cement at points of quotation or sale or to particular purchasers by respondents using such plan or system, or which prevents purchasers from finding any advantage in price in dealing with one or more of the respondents against any of the other respondents. 2. In connection with or in aid or support of any plan, system, acts, or practices prohibited in paragraph 1 above [then follow sixteen injunctive paragraphs which we summarize in footnote [4] ]. 3. Discriminating in price between or among their respective customers by systematically charging and accepting mill net prices which differ by the amounts necessary to produce delivered costs to purchasers identical with delivered costs available to such purchasers through purchases from other respondents. 4. Using any means substantially similar to those specifically set out in this order with the purpose or effect of accomplishing any of the things prohibited by this order. We set forth the order at this point for the purpose of clarifying a somewhat confused situation as to the precise objective of this proceeding. The order leaves no room for doubt but that the purpose of the Commission is to outlaw not only the multiple basing point price system but any and all price systems which permit the selling of cement pursuant to or in accordance with any other plan or system, which results in identical prices or which prevents purchasers from buying from one producer at a less price than from another. The order further makes plain that it is the purpose of the Commission to require each producer to sell cement on an f.o.b. mill price basis. The numerous other acts enjoined (see footnote 4) are practices which the complaint alleges were utilized for the purpose of making effective the multiple basing point system and are referred to by the Commission as acts of implementation. In other words, the order enjoins not only the use of a multiple basing point price system but all acts and practices in aid or support of such system. It is evident, so we think, that if the record fails to disclose the alleged combination or if its use be not illegal, the acts and practices alleged to support such system become immaterial. Moreover, paragraph 3 of the order appears to be directed against respondents in their individual capacity, thereby ignoring the charge of combination or conspiracy. As we understand the Commission's argument, it so concedes. It states: Paragraph 3 is by its nature applicable only to the respective corporate petitioners [respondents], but to a practice which to the extent used by all would in effect recreate the system and have the same effect in making delivered prices identical. If our construction of this paragraph is correct, it means that the charge of combination is little more than a pretense to get all the members of the industry, leaders and followers alike, into the same proceeding and before the same court. Further, this paragraph would prohibit each individual respondent from absorbing freight even though done in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor. That this is the Commission's purpose is in effect conceded. In response to criticism directed at this paragraph by respondents the Commission states: This case will have been litigated in vain if petitioners' [respondents'] views prevail on this subject, even though other provisions of the order were to stand.