Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
But under article 15(6) the immunity would not apply after the Commission informed undertakings of their preliminary examination. The Noordwijk Cement companies got a letter under article 15(6) saying their immunity ceased, and it brought an action to quash the decision. The Commission argued their decision was not an ‘act’ that could be ...
Atlantic Cement Co., [1] was a New York court case in which New York's highest court considered whether permanent damages were an appropriate remedy in lieu of a permanent injunction. The case was one of the first and most influential instances of a court applying permanent damages. It is widely referenced in law and economics research and case ...
Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25 is an English tort law case concerning the economic tort of conspiracy to injure.A product of its time, the courts adhered to a laissez faire doctrine allowing firms to form a cartel, which would now be seen as contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
The cement mixer was outside, out of sight from where Kristich routinely turned the machine on and off, according to the report. “Think of it like a clothes dryer, if the door is open and you ...
The loosest form of a price cartel can be recognized in tacit collusion (implicit collusion), wherein smaller enterprises individually devise their prices and market shares in response to the same market conditions, without direct communication, resulting in a less competitive outcome. This type of collusion is generally legal and can achieve a ...
The Lafarge scandal refers to the court case against Lafarge, a French cement company, for making payments to the armed terrorist groups Islamic State of Iraq and Levant and al-Nusra Front between 2013–2014. [1] The scandal was first revealed by French journalist Dorothée Myriam Kellou and was then followed by investigations by the French ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents.