SUMMARY OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
FOR MONDAY, JAN. 13, 1992 THROUGH FRIDAY, JAN. 17, 1992

1/13/92	U.S. v. Tidewater. Inc. and Zapata Gulf Marine Corporation Civil No.: 92-0106 (D.D.C.) A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., challenging the proposed acquisition of Zapata Gulf Marine Corporation of Houston, Texas, by-Tidewater, Inc. of New Orleans, Louisiana. At the same time, a proposed consent decree was filed which, if approved by the court, will resolve the suit by requiring Tidewater to divest certain vessels. Tidewater and Zapata are two of only six firms that provide anchor-hauling service in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and both firms also operate several vessels in areas outside the Gulf. The proposed acquisition would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act by lessening competition in this highly concentrated $30 million market.
1/14/92	Department of Justice Issues Business Review Letter The Department, in a letter from James F. Rill, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, to counsel for Experience Information Bureau Inc. (EIB), advised EIB that it does not intend to challenge EIB's proposal to operate an information exchange for underwriters of credit life and disability insurance. EIB, a North Carolina corporation, was formed to serve as a clearinghouse for underwriters of credit life and disability insurance. These insurers underwrite policies that provide for the payment of loans in the event of death or disablement of the borrower. EIB proposes to collect and distribute among subscribing insurers historical loss information on individual lending institutions that sell the insurance in order to assist the insurers in evaluating risk.
1/14/92	U.S. v. Magnolia Processing. Inc. d/b/a Pride of the Pond Criminal No.: 92-00011 (E.D. Pa.) One-count felony information was filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, charging Magnolia Processing, Inc. of Tunica, Mississippi, with conspiring to fix prices, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, of catfish products sold nationwide.
1/14/92	U.S. v. Electrovator Corporation Criminal No.: CR-92-B-07S (N.D. Ala.) One-count information was filed in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, charging Electrovator Corporation of Birmingham, Alabama, with making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, to the United States in connection with its bid on a dredge motor contract for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Portland, Oregon.
1/16/92	U.S. v. Joseph Montgomery Criminal No.: 3-92CR031D (N.D. Tex.) One-count information was filed in U.S. District Court in Dallas, Texas, charging Joseph Montgomery of Burkburnett, Texas, with rigging bids, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for the award and performance of contracts to supply fluid milk to public school districts in Childress, Clay, Cooke, Hardeman, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, Wise and Young counties, Texas.
1/16/92	U.S. v. Southwest Bus Sales, Inc.; Gary Hewitt Bennett; and Randall Parker Bennett Criminal No.: CR92-40006-01 (D.S.D.) One-count indictment was filed in U.S. District Court in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, charging Southwest Bus Sales, Inc. of Hanley Falls, Minnesota and Canton, South Dakota, and its owners and operators, Gary Hewitt Bennett and Randall Parker Bennett, with conspiring to set prices, rig bids and allocate customers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, concerning bus and bus body contracts for transporting children in South Dakota.

Copies of legal filings are available from the Legal Procedure Unit, Antitrust Division, Room 3233, Telephone No.: 514-2481.

92-021