FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                    AT
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1994                                 (202) 616-2771
                                                         TDD (202) 514-1888

                RESTONIC CORPORATION CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL
               CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF 1960 CONSENT DECREE

     WASHINGTON, D.C.  --  The Department of Justice's Antitrust
Division has brought criminal contempt charges against a Chicago
bedding company for allegedly violating an agreement it made more
than 30 years ago to stop assigning geographic territories to its
licensees for the distribution of its products.
     The case, filed November 21, against the company, known as
Restonic Corporation, is the Justice Department's first antitrust
enforcement effort using the criminal contempt laws since 1990. 
     In May, 1960, the Department brought suit against Restonic and
three other companies who licensed trademarks for the sale of
mattresses, alleging that each had violated Section One of the
Sherman Act, by conspiring with its licensee owners to allocate
territories and fix resale prices.  At the same time, Restonic
entered into a consent decree resolving those charges. 
     Restonic owns the Restonic and associated trademarks as well
as various patents for the manufacture of mattresses and licenses
its trademarks to manufacturers who sell Restonic brand mattresses
across the United States.  These licensees in turn own all the
stock of Restonic.
     Assistant Attorney General Anne K. Bingaman said that the
charges arose from a federal grand jury investigation in Chicago,
Illinois.  Bingaman said, "This investigation demonstrates that the
Antitrust Division expects all parties bound by court-ordered
decrees to obey those decrees.  We will act swiftly and surely to
see that any violations of existing decrees are punished."
     The investigation was conducted by the Division's Chicago
Field Office with assistance from the U.S. Attorney's office in
Chicago.  
     The criminal statute under which Restonic was charged does not
establish a maximum penalty.       
                                    ###
94-665