Generally, price-fixing agreements are considered a per se - TopicsExpress



          

Generally, price-fixing agreements are considered a per se violation of the Sherman Act. See United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 218, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940). Per se violations include those types of restraints on competition that are in and of themselves considered unreasonable because their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable. United States v. Cargo Service Stations, Inc., 657 F.2d 676, 682 n. 4 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (quoting Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, 2 L.Ed.2d 545 (1958)). However, when the evidence consists of mere exchanges of information the presumption vanishes. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 441 n. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978). Exchanges of information are not considered a per se violation because such practices can in certain circumstances increase economic efficiency and render markets more, rather than less, competitive. Gypsum, Id. at 441 n. 16, 98 S.Ct. 2864. Therefore, such exchanges of information are evaluated under a rule of reason analysis. This court has previously articulated what Section 1 rule of reason analysis entails. We laid down four steps of proof that a plaintiff must present: (1) that the defend ants contracted, combined or conspired among each other; (2) that the combination or conspiracy produced ad verse anti-competitive effects within the relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the objects of and conduct pursuant to the contract or conspiracy were illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate result of that conspiracy. J.F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1541 (3d Cir.1990).4 Under the rule of reason, all the evidence presented must be weighed to determine whether the defendants purported price fixing practices violated the Sherman Act. III. The Evidence ... openjurist.org/166/f3d/112/baby-food-antitrust-litigation-ll-v-hj-bnnc-bcn-j
Posted on: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:00:52 +0000

Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015