FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                          AT
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1997                           (202) 616-2771
                                               TDD (202) 514-1888


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH FLORIDA FERTILIZER CO.
    THAT PREVENTS COMPANY FROM CONTINUING COLLUSIVE PRACTICES


     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Justice reached a
settlement today with a Florida company, formerly a major
fertilizer manufacturer, that will prevent the company from again
using collusive practices to restrain competitive bidding on a
Tampa facility used to store fertilizer.

     In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida,
the Department's Antitrust Division alleged that the Bartow-based
Seminole Fertilizer Corp. entered into a secret agreement with
its chief rival on the terms of a bid for an ammonia storage
facility in Tampa.  Ammonia is a primary raw material for the
production of diammonium phosphate fertilizer.
  
     The Department alleged that the agreement had the effect of
eliminating Seminole as a viable competing bidder for the
facility, thereby restraining trade.  Had the agreement not been
discovered prior to the sale, the seller would have received an
artificially lower price.  

     "This settlement will foster competition by ensuring that
Seminole does not again restrain competition by entering into
private bidding agreements that eliminate any competing producer
from the field of potential bidders," said Joel I. Klein, Acting
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's
Antitrust Division.

     Under the settlement, Seminole agreed not to enter into
agreements with others illegally setting the price of assets used
in the production and distribution of fertilizer.  Seminole also
agreed not to submit joint bids for fertilizer assets without
first notifying the seller of the asset and the person
administering the sale of the asset that the bid was jointly
proposed.  

     The Department alleged in its complaint that representatives
for Seminole and two of its competitors--Norsk Hydro USA Inc. and
Farmland Industries Inc.--met in March 1992 at a hotel in New
York to discuss sharing pipeline capacity and the cost of bidding
on the Tampa facility. 
 
     Two hours before the March 12, 1992, auction took place,
Seminole and Norsk Hydro USA agreed that Norsk would receive bid
support of up to $2.5 million from Seminole, if necessary, to
defeat a competing bid.  In exchange, Norsk agreed to give
Seminole increased pipeline capacity if Norsk was the successful
bidder.  Farmland benefitted from the arrangement because of its
partnership with Norsk which intended the Tampa facility to be an
asset of Farmland Hydro Ltd. Partnership a joint venture formed 
by the two companies in November 1991.  Both Seminole and
Farmland withdrew from the auction leaving Norsk as the only
bidder. 

     The agreement among the three companies had the effect of
eliminating Norsk's chief rival as a viable competing bidder. 
 
     Seminole is not currently in the fertilizer business.  Until
all of its assets were sold in May 1993, Seminole was one of the
largest domestic manufacturers of diammonium phosphate --the
leading internationally traded phosphatic fertilizer.  Seminole
had customers in China, India and Pakistan, among other
countries.  Seminole retains expertise and know-how about the
business, and the decree applies not only to Seminole, but also
to its parent company and any successor firm.

     If approved by the court, the proposed settlement, which
would alleviate the Department's competitive concerns, would
settle the lawsuit.  

     As required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
the proposed consent decree, along with the Department's
competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal
Register.  Any person may submit comments on the proposed decree
within 60 days to John T. Orr, Chief, Atlanta Field Office,
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Richard B. Russell
Bldg., 75 Spring Street, S.W., Suite 1176, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.  At the conclusion of the comment period, the court may
enter the consent decree upon finding that it serves the public
interest. 
                               ###
97-250