Metropolitan Bag & Paper Distributors Association, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Harlem Paper Products Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, Robins Paper Company of Baltimore City v. Federal Trade Commission

240 F.2d 341
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 18, 1957
Docket23373
StatusPublished

This text of 240 F.2d 341 (Metropolitan Bag & Paper Distributors Association, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Harlem Paper Products Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, Robins Paper Company of Baltimore City v. Federal Trade Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Metropolitan Bag & Paper Distributors Association, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Harlem Paper Products Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission, Robins Paper Company of Baltimore City v. Federal Trade Commission, 240 F.2d 341 (2d Cir. 1957).

Opinion

240 F.2d 341

METROPOLITAN BAG & PAPER DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, Inc., et
al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.
HARLEM PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION et al., Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.
ROBINS PAPER COMPANY OF BALTIMORE CITY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Nos. 54, 55, 56, Dockets 23372, 23373, 23676.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 14, 1956.
Decided Jan. 9, 1957.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing in No. 23373 Feb. 18, 1957.

Nathan Frankel, New York City (Barshay & Frankel, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners Metropolitan Bag & Paper Distributors Ass'n Inc., et al.

Max Wechsler, New York City (Wechsler & Solodar and Albert L. Solodar, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners Harlem Paper Products Corp. et al.

John D. Alexander, Baltimore, Md. (Duer & Taylor, New York City, and Wm. Pepper Constable, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for petitioner Robins Paper Co. of Baltimore City.

Jno. W. Carter, Jr., Atty., Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. (Earl W. Kintner, Gen. Counsel, and Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge.

These are three petitions to review a cases and desist order of the Federal Trade Commission, each petition being filed by paper merchants who belong to a different local trade association. The Commission's complaint had been directed against the National Paper Trade Association, its officers, 23 affiliated local associations, their officers, and some 941 paper merchant members, and charged them with conspiracy to fix uniform prices and discount terms in the sale and distribution of 'fine paper' (printing and book paper, stationery) and 'wrapping paper' (wrapping, toilet tissue, towels, drinking cups, etc.), in violation of § 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).

The Commission found a conspiracy clustering around the efforts, of National to (1) issue Blue, Yellow, and Brown (price) Books; (2) keep members' cash discounts uniform, despite a shift in manufacturers' credit terms in 1946; (3) co-operate with regional efforts at price-fixing. For the purposes of this review we must take the main conspiracy, spearheaded by National, as established and have to determine only whether the petitioners, operating somewhat on the periphery, have been properly implicated, i.e., whether as to each petitioner the Commission's finding of participation is supported by the necessary minimum of substantial evidence. Excelsior Laboratory v. F.T.C., 2 Cir., 171 F.2d 484, 486. The chief question is whether there was substantial evidence to link the petitioners to the second and third of National's goals which we have stated. A subordinate question the petitioners attempt to raise is that they were unfairly discriminated against by the Commission's order of dismissal entered in favor of various correspondents.

I. The New York City Petitioners

(1) Metropolitan Bag & Paper Distributors Association, Inc. Four local trade associations-- 'New Jersey,' 'New York,' 'Cosmopolitan,' and 'Metropolitan'--Engaged in a regional conspiracy to fix prices and credit terms of wrapping paper products from 1934 to the time of the complaint. There were six points of contact between this regional conspiracy and the national one: (1) all four local associations were dues-paying members of the national association; (2) in January 1936 the national group gave information to a regional council composed of three of these local associations engaged in price-fixing; (3) in April 1940 the national group organized a regional council of these four local associations for illegal activities; (4) in November 1943 the president of Cosmopolitan urged its members to pay national dues; (5) in January 1947 Cosmopolitan's Board of Directors discussed writing the national group concerning proposed standardized credit terms; and (6) in 1948 and 1949 officers of Yorkville Paper Company, Inc. (a member of Metropolitan), and A. E. MacAdam & Co., Inc. (another member of Metropolitan), served as officers of the national group, as did an officer of Harlem Paper Products Corporation (a member of Cosmopolitan).

We must accept the inferences drawn by the Commission that (1) the regional council created in 1940 continued in existence until the filing of the complaint; (2) the members of the local councils who had dealings with the national group in 1936, 1940, and 1947 knew of its purposes and joined in the conspiracy to further them; and (3) these local trade associations on continuing to be members of National are to be charged with all they would have learned had they tried to discover what National was doing with their dues and moral support. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. F.T.C., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 393, 396. Metropolitan Bag & Paper Distributors Association, Inc., as one of these four local trade associations, can thus be found to be a national conspirator.

(2) Yorkville Paper Company, Inc. This company was a member of Metropolitan in December 1941; and Arthur H. Stein, an officer of Yorkville, was president of Metropolitan at that time. Stein was an officer of the national group for the year 1948-1949, and was a speaker at the 1948 national convention. He was also president of Metropolitan in 1942 when the organization was engaged in efforts at standardizing credit terms in the industry and similar practices. While Stein was Metropolitan's president that group paid at least $750 dues to the national association. Thus there was sufficient proof to link Yorkville to the national conspiracy.

(3) A. E. MacAdam & Co., Inc. This corporation was a member of Metropolitan in December 1941, June 1942, and at the time the complaint was filed. It was represented by Alfred E. MacAdam, III, at Metropolitan's meetings of December 1941 and June 1942. In 1941 Alfred E. MacAdam was appointed to Metropolitan's Finance Committee, charged with getting money to cover the expense of national dues and the local credit bureau. MacAdam was chairman of the local credit bureau committee which worked with other local trade associations to establish uniform regional credit terms. MacAdam was a speaker at the 1948 national convention and was a national officer for 1948-1949. Consequently there was enough evidence to connect this corporation with the national conspiracy.

(4) John H. Free, Inc. This corporation was a member of Metropolitan in 1941, 1942, and at the time the complaint was filed. It was represented at the December 1941 and June 1942 meetings of Metropolitan where the members discussed paying national dues; forming a credit bureau; distributing resale price tables; and establishing central control over all advertising done by members of Metropolitan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 F.2d 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-bag-paper-distributors-association-inc-v-federal-trade-ca2-1957.