Home Anti Competitive Agreement Cases

Anti Competitive Agreement Cases

aprilie 8, 2021

In 1995, an executive at Simsmetal, the largest scrap metal dealer in the southern hemisphere, tried to force a South Australian competitor to enter into a market-sharing agreement. He suggested that the two companies would not compete for smelter scrap suppliers. He then threatened to use Simsmetal`s considerable financial resources to „destroy” the competitor`s business if he disagreed and to „frame” it if he complied. The smallest operator secretly recorded the requests at the second meeting. ASX Operations Pty Ltd v Pont Data Australia Pty Ltd (No 1) (1990) 27 FCR 460 Market at issue – Exclusions – Anti-competitive agreements 3 These categories are those in which an agreement (a) directly or indirectly determines the purchase or sale price, b) limits or controls the market, supply, technical development, investment or services (c) the market or source of production by assigning the geographic area of the market , the nature of goods or services, d) directly leads to manipulation of offers or collusive offers. The rule applicable to these agreements The agreement was international and the most important meetings were held abroad, but the success of the legal action was based on the fact that the agreement agreed to the Australian market after the competition authorities of the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and Japan took global enforcement action. In 2010, the Federal Court of Australia issued orders preventing the parties from repeating such conduct and imposed fines of more than $8 million. Pricing and market distribution are about maintaining higher prices than would be achieved in a competitive market. Companies that recognized certain customers (called „pets”) as specific suppliers and agreed not to compete with their operations maintained market share. Participants even hired an accountant to monitor market shares to enforce the agreement. The regime has resulted in significant surcharges for major construction contracts, including federal, regional and municipal projects. Three Australian suppliers of animal vitamins held meetings and telephone conversations where they agreed on the prices they would charge for certain vitamins. They were the Australian subsidiaries of large foreign companies, which had also entered into price-fixing agreements and overseas market allocation agreements.

The Federal Court of Justice has imposed $26 million in fines on Australian suppliers. 3.2 DG`s view: the DG was not convinced of the above arguments and adopted the following position: (a) the Coordinating Committee, composed of various bodies4 that deal with visual films for the use of theatres or television channels; the market in question would therefore be the film and television industry in West Bengal; (b) the two institutions made up of persons or associations of persons linked to the same film market and their joint actions are examined in accordance with paragraph 3 of Section 3; (c) the invitation to the two broadcasters to interrupt the broadcast, the threats of non-participation, the demonstrations and the agitations that effectively ended the broadcast resulted in a restriction of commercial exploitation and were referred to paragraph 3, paragraph b); (d) there was no need for unrest, as there was enormous potential for local filmmakers and the industry would probably not suffer as a result of the synchronized series broadcast on both channels; (e) Although the Coordinating Committee was a union, they and their associated organizations tried to be commercially exploited by the so-called series and such behaviour was anti-competitive.