) ) Investigation No. 337-TA-406 Bond Forfeiture Proceedings Order No. 102: Setting Shorten Response Time On April 22,2003, the administrative law judge received a copy of Jazz Photo Corp’s “Motion To Take Judicial Notice”.

Any responses to said motion should be received no later than the close of business on Monday, April 28,2003.

On April 23,2003, each of complainant and staff received a copy of this order.

Investigation No. 337-TA-406 Enforcement Proceedings (II) Order No. 100: Denying Cossentino’s Motion No. 406-147 ---, z3 r i -4 On April 4,2003, pursuant to Commission rule 210.15, respondent Anthony Cos moved for clarification of Order No. 96 as it relates to whether Cossentino is jointly andG severally liable .

According to Order No. 96 at 7, “if it is found that there is a violation of the cease and desist order issued against respondent Jazz, which is a fact yet to be determined, Cossentino would be found subject to the cease and desist order and liable for possible civil penalties.” It further found at 7 that “because there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether there is a violation of the cease and desist order in issue, Motion No. 406-143 as it relates to the cease and desist order is denied.” In the filings of Cossentino relating to Motion Nos. 406-143 and 406-147, the administrative law judge finds no admission by Cossentino that Jazz Photo Corp. (Jazz) has violated the cease and desist order in issue based on the allegations of complainant.

If that is ‘The administrative law judge does find that Certain Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power Take- Off Horsepower, Inv. No. 337-TA-380, Enforcement Proceeding, Commission Opinion at 74-75 (August 18, 1999) holds that corporate officers may be held jointly and severally liable for violation of Commission orders.

In the absence of an admission by Cossentino, there is an issue of fact, as stated in Order No. 96, as to whether Jazz has violated said cease and desist order based on the allegations of complainant.