Market sharing or allocation systems are agreements in which competitors share markets. In such systems, competing companies assign themselves certain customers or types of customers, products or territories. For example, a competitor may sell to certain customers or types of customers or bid on contracts leased by certain customers or types of customers. In return, it will not sell to customers and will not bid on contracts leased by customers assigned to other competitors. In other systems, competitors agree to sell only to customers in certain geographic areas and refuse to sell to customers in geographic areas assigned to conspirators or intentionally offer high prices. In its most common form, pricing is an agreement to increase the price of a product or service by a certain amount, e.B. all widget manufacturers accept a 5% price increase from June 1st. Other manifestations of pricing are: Horizontal mergers: As companies with dominant market shares prepare for a merger, the FTC must decide whether the new entity will be able to exert monopolistic and anti-competitive pressure on the remaining companies. For example, the company that makes Malibu rum and had a market share of 8% of total rum sales offered to buy the company that makes Captain Morgan rums, which had a total turnover of 33% of total sales, to start a new business with a market share of 41%. and a fine of up to $350,000 or 3 years in prison (or both) for persons committed before June 22, 2004. If the crime was committed on or after June 22, 2004, the maximum fine under the Sherman Act is $100 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals, and the maximum prison sentence under the Sherman Act is 10 years. In certain circumstances, the maximum potential fine may be increased beyond the maximum levels of the Sherman Act to double the related profit or loss.
In addition, collusion between competitors may constitute a violation of the Postal or Electronic Fraud Act, the Misrepresentation Act or other federal statutes, all of which are prosecuted by the Cartel Division. In other words, first of all, the plaintiff (in addition to the antitrust damage) only has to prove that the specific anti-competitive conduct actually took place. The applicant is not required to prove the lack of competitiveness or the negative effects of the conduct on the relevant product and geographic markets. After this initial selection, suspicious bids must be analyzed for the following practices, which often indicate collusion: To analyze whether a certain restriction is inappropriate under federal antitrust laws, a court applies one of three approaches: Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve price fixing, bid manipulation, or market sharing or allocation systems. Any of these forms of collusion can be prosecuted if it has taken place, at least in part, within the last five years. Evidence of such a crime does not require us to prove that the conspirators entered into a formal written or express agreement. Pricing, bid manipulation and other collusive agreements can be established either by direct evidence, such as a participant`s testimony, or by circumstantial evidence such as suspicious auction patterns, travel and expense reports, telephone records and business journal entries. Bid-rigging also takes many forms, but bid-rigging plots typically fall into one or more of the following categories: Market allocation is a system developed by two companies to keep their business activities in specific geographic areas or types of customers. This system can also be called a regional monopoly. Vertical mergers. Mergers between buyers and sellers can improve cost savings and business synergies, which can lead to competitive prices for consumers.