Before BAZELON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 1957.CDC.110
Shimmerlik and Albert T. Wantz, individually and as
officers of Dolcin Corporation.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge:
This proceeding is before us on a petition for reconsideration of our finding that the respondents Shimmerlik and Wantz, individually and as officers of Dolcin Corporation, were guilty of criminal contempt. See In re Dolcin Corporation, U.S. App. D.C., F.2d (1956), cert. denied, U.S. (1957). *fn1
Shimmerlik and Wantz are respectively treasurer and secretary of Dolcin Corporation. Each was a named respondent - individually and as an officer of Dolcin - in the proceeding before the Federal Trade Commission. Each admitted and acquiesced in the following finding made by the Hearing Examiner and adopted by the Commission:
"Paragraph One: ... Respondents ... George Shimmerlik, and Albert T. Wantz, individuals, are now and at all times mentioned herein have been directors of said corporate respondent, and respectively, the ... treasurer, and secretary thereof ... and are now, and at all times mentioned herein have been, in control of the management, policies, and operation of the said corporate respondent, including the acts, practices and methods herein found." Record in No. 11,700, Dolcin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, supra n. 1.
Shimmerlik and Wantz did not challenge that finding in this court when they sought review of the Commission's cease and desist order.
The order entered by the Commission expressly named - and ran against - Shimmerlik and Wantz. And this court's decree, effective April 8, 1955, enforcing that cease and desist order, as modified and affirmed, likewise ran against them. It directed each of them - individually and as officers of Dolcin - to cease and desist from certain specified advertising practices.
Shimmerlik and Wantz press two grounds for reconsideration of our finding of guilt: (1) They say they did not know of the letter from the corporation's counsel to the corporation's president dated May 17, 1955, which stated:
"... there is nothing to settle because the courts have settled the matter for us.Therefore, we are in no position to bargain.
"The F.T.C. order, as modified by the Court speaks for itself. There is nothing further to be done now except comply with its provisions until such time ...