Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In August 2007 British Airways (BA) was fined £121.5 million [45] for price-fixing. The fine was imposed by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) after BA admitted to the price-fixing of fuel surcharges on long haul flights.
Per curiam. Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. United States v. Huck Mfg. Co., 382 U.S. 197 (1965), is the most recent patent-license price-fixing case to reach the United States Supreme Court. It was inconclusive, as the Court split 4–4 [1] and affirmed the decision of the lower court without opinion.
v. t. e. Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand. The intent of price fixing may be to push the price ...
15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to a joint venture between oil companies to market gasoline to gas stations. The Court ruled unanimously [ 1] that the joint venture's unified price ...
On 5 April 2006, Sun Woo Lee, Senior Manager of DRAM at Samsung Electronics, entered into a plea bargain with the US Government for his involvement in the price fixing conspiracy. [5] Following the plea agreement he was sentenced to 8 months in prison and fined US$250,000. [6] Lee was subsequently promoted to President of Samsung Germany in ...
The lysine price-fixing conspiracy was an organized effort during the mid-1990s to raise the price of the animal feed additive lysine.It involved five companies that had commercialized high-tech fermentation technologies, including American company Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Japanese companies Ajinomoto and Kyowa Hakko Kogyo, and Korean companies Sewon America Inc. and Cheil Jedang Ltd.
A federal district court in February 1961 fined 29 electrical manufacturing companies and 45 individuals a total of $1,924,500 for violating the antitrust laws by fixing prices and rigging bids on heavy electrical equipment, some of which was sold to the Government. [46] (. See also: Allis-Chalmers § 1960s and 1970s.)
Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948), [1] is a decision of the United States Supreme Court limiting the doctrine of the 1926 General Electric decision, excusing price fixing in patent license agreements. [2] The Line Material Court held that cross-licenses between two manufacturer competitors, providing for fixing the prices of the licensed ...