American Warehousing of New York, Inc. v. the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment, 36939 [05-12640]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 122 / Monday, June 27, 2005 / Notices Closed Session • Report on System Performance (with discussion of 2004 results of Dynamic Capital Adequacy Test) Open Session A. Approval of Minutes • March 21, 2005 (Regular Meeting) B. Reports • Financials • Report on Insured Obligations • Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan C. New Business • Mid-Year Review of Insurance Premium Rates Dated: June 21, 2005. Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board. [FR Doc. 05–12661 Filed 6–24–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6710–01–P FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION [Docket No. 05–03] American Warehousing of New York, Inc. v. the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment Notice is given that a complaint has been filed by American Warehousing of New York, Inc. (‘‘Complainant’’) against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (‘‘Respondent’’). Complainant contends that Respondent has violated, and continues to violate sections 10(d)(1), 10(d)(3) 10(d)(4), 10(b)(10) and 10(b)(13) of the Act, 46 U.S.C. App. 1709(d)(1), 1709(d)(3), 1709(b)(4), 1709(b)(10) and 1709(b)(13), respectively. Specifically, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has not provided any material or reasonable justification for its actions (i) in hampering operations at American Warehousing, (ii) delaying and/or denying berths to ships at American Warehousing, (iii) in its campaign to convince American Warehousing clients to take their business elsewhere, and (iv) its attempts to double the rent at Pier 7, and (v) engaging in various discriminatory, retaliatory or irrational behavior. As a direct result of these allegations, Complainant claims that Respondent’s actions have given American Warehousing’s competitors in other terminals and geographic locations an unfair advantage in that they are able to conduct business in the New York-New Jersey area more efficiently because the Respondent is not harassing them or their clients. Complainant seeks an order directing Respondent to cease all VerDate jul<14>2003 18:11 Jun 24, 2005 Jkt 205001 36939 actions to terminate Complainant’s leasehold relationship with Respondent; cease all actions designed to harass, intimidate and delay the operations of the Complainant; establish and put in force such practices as the Commission determines to be lawful and reasonable; provide other relief the Commission may determine to be proper as reward or reparation; and take any other action the Commission determines to be appropriate. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing shall include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and crossexamination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by June 21, 2006, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by October 19, 2006. Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05–12640 Filed 6–24–05; 8:45 am] available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 18, 2005. A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303: 1. First Security Group, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee; to acquire Jackson Bank and Trust, Gainesboro, Tennessee. B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414: 1. Clarkston Financial Corporation, Clarkston, Michigan; to acquire not less than 51 percent of the voting shares of Huron Valley State Bank, Milford, Michigan (in organization). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 20, 2005. BILLING CODE 6730–01–P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below. The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 05–12496 Filed 6–24–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–S FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 042 3160] BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment Federal Trade Commission. Proposed consent agreement. AGENCY: ACTION: 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 and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations. E:\FR\FM\27JNN1.SGM 27JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 36939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-12640]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 05-03]


American Warehousing of New York, Inc. v. the Port Authority of 
New York and New Jersey; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed by American 
Warehousing of New York, Inc. (``Complainant'') against the Port 
Authority of New York and New Jersey (``Respondent''). Complainant 
contends that Respondent has violated, and continues to violate 
sections 10(d)(1), 10(d)(3) 10(d)(4), 10(b)(10) and 10(b)(13) of the 
Act, 46 U.S.C. App. 1709(d)(1), 1709(d)(3), 1709(b)(4), 1709(b)(10) and 
1709(b)(13), respectively. Specifically, the Complainant alleges that 
the Respondent has not provided any material or reasonable 
justification for its actions (i) in hampering operations at American 
Warehousing, (ii) delaying and/or denying berths to ships at American 
Warehousing, (iii) in its campaign to convince American Warehousing 
clients to take their business elsewhere, and (iv) its attempts to 
double the rent at Pier 7, and (v) engaging in various discriminatory, 
retaliatory or irrational behavior. As a direct result of these 
allegations, Complainant claims that Respondent's actions have given 
American Warehousing's competitors in other terminals and geographic 
locations an unfair advantage in that they are able to conduct business 
in the New York-New Jersey area more efficiently because the Respondent 
is not harassing them or their clients. Complainant seeks an order 
directing Respondent to cease all actions to terminate Complainant's 
leasehold relationship with Respondent; cease all actions designed to 
harass, intimidate and delay the operations of the Complainant; 
establish and put in force such practices as the Commission determines 
to be lawful and reasonable; provide other relief the Commission may 
determine to be proper as reward or reparation; and take any other 
action the Commission determines to be appropriate.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing 
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of 
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine 
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn 
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the 
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record. 
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of 
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by June 21, 
2006, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by 
October 19, 2006.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-12640 Filed 6-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P