Market sharing or award rules are agreements in which competitors share markets. In such systems, competing companies assign customers or types of customers, products or territories to each other. For example, a competitor may sell to certain customers or types of customers or offer on contracts leased by certain customers or types of customers. In return, he or she will not sell to customers or offer them on contracts leased by customers assigned to other competitors. In other systems, competitors agree to sell only to customers located in certain geographical areas and refuse to deliberately sell or offer high prices to customers located in geographical areas assigned to conspiracy companies. In federal actions for agreements under the Sherman Act, courts pay successful plaintiffs lawyers` fees and monetary damages equivalent to three times their actual losses. In appropriate cases, a court may also order the accused to cease any other activity related to the prohibited conspiracy. Anti-dominant cartel complainants may also receive damages and claims for omission under the anti-dominant law of some States. It is almost always illegal to enter into simple agreements between competitors, to divide up distribution areas or to call on customers. These agreements are essentially agreements not to compete: “I will not sell in your market if you do not sell in mine.” The FTC discovered such a deal when two chemical companies agreed that one would not sell in North America if the other did not sell to Japan.
Illegal market allocation may include the allocation of a certain percentage of the available activity to each producer, the geographical distribution of sales areas or the allocation of certain customers to each seller. The allocation or allocation of customers can be achieved by causing each competitor to lose the exclusive right to deal with the following: A: A limited non-competition clause is a common feature of transactions in which a business is sold, and courts have generally allowed such agreements when they were a transaction ancillary to the main transaction, which is reasonably necessary, to protect the value of the assets to be sold. and limited in time and area. However, there are other situations where competition bans may be anti-competitive. For example, the FTC prevented the dialysis clinic operator from buying five clinics and paying its competitor to close three more. The sales contract also contained a non-competition clause that prevented the seller from opening a new clinic in the same area for five years and required the seller to impose competition bans in its contracts with the medical directors of the closed establishments. In this situation, the non-compete clause prevented these doctors from serving as medical directors for a new clinic in the area and reduced the chances of a new clinic being opened for five years. . . .