16 C.F.R. § 2.6
Notification of purpose
Any person, partnership, or corporation under investigation compelled or requested to furnish information or documentary material shall be advised of the purpose and scope of the investigation, the nature of the acts or practices under investigation, and the applicable provisions of law. A copy of a Commission resolution, as prescribed under § 2.7(a), shall be sufficient to give persons, partnerships, or corporations notice of the purpose of the investigation. While investigations are generally nonpublic, Commission staff may disclose the existence of an investigation to potential witnesses or other third parties to the extent necessary to advance the investigation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1974–1980 · leading case: Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 601 F.2d 1329 (6th Cir. 1979).
Am. Motors Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 601 F.2d 1329 (6th Cir. 1979). “” 16 C.F.R. § 2.6 (1978); 3) require that an FTC resolution initiating an investigation must “adequately set forth the ‘Nature and Scope of Investigation,’ ” Federal Trade Commission, Operating Manual § 3.”
Borden, Inc., a Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 495 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1974). “6, 16 C.F.R. § 2.6 , which provides: “Any person under investigation compelled or requested to furnish information or documentary evidence shall be advised with respect to the purpose and scope of the investigation.”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Winters Nat'l Bank & Trust Co.,respondents-Appellants, 601 F.2d 395 (6th Cir. 1979). “The use of the resolution is apparently designed both to provide notice of the purpose of the investigation itself, see 16 C.F.R. § 2.6 (1979), and to trigger the exercise of subpoena powers by the Regional Directors, thus giving the Commission a supervisory curb on the…”
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Carter, 636 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Appellants complain that the Resolution, see page - supra, lacks specificity, and argue that this violates the Fourth Amendment, renders impossible a determination of the relevance of items sought by the subpoenas, and also violates the Commission’s Rules of Practice, which…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.