Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (8516)	11/4/1997 2:56:00 PM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Court rules on price fixing Suppliers of goods, services may set maximum prices for retailers to charge November 4, 1997: 1:32 p.m. ET Court hears antitrust case - Oct. 7, 1997 More related sites... WASHINGTON (CNNfn) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suppliers of goods and services may set maximum prices for their retailers to charge without violating antitrust laws. In a case brought to the high court by oil companies -- State Oil vs. Khan -- the court unanimously decided to overturn existing law which makes such "vertical price fixing" automatically (per se) illegal. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the justices said "we do not hold that all vertical maximum price fixing is, per se, lawful. Instead, vertical maximum price fixing, like the majority of commercial arrangements subject to the antitrust laws, should be evaluated under the rule of reason." This overturns existing law established in the Supreme Court opinion known as Albrecht. Vertical price fixing pertains to arrangements between a manufacturer, distributor, supplier or retailer. Horizontal price fixing, which would involve competitors colluding to set prices, remains illegal. The oil companies had sought the court's consent to the "rule of reason." Khan was a Illinois service station owner who contended his contract with State Oil left him too little profit margin since it set maximum prices. Other industries which rely on manufacturer-retailer arrangements such as newspapers, beer distributors, and car dealers supported the oil company's case. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 7. In a separate opinion, the Supreme Court also ruled Tuesday that a business processing student loans is liable for misappropriating those funds even if there was no intent to defraud. The court upheld a Seventh Circuit judgment against Acme Institute of Technology in South Bend, Indiana. The case -- Bates vs. United States -- was argued October 7.