Mr. Black
Years ago

NH - question for a Lawyer

Thedoctor, any other lawyers, I've got a legal question. I'm sure it's not
too hard, but it has kind of been bugging me for a while.

Here's the scenario.

Company X supplies Company Y.

X launches a takeover of Y, but is unsuccessful. X then with-holds supply,
and up's prices of its products to company Y, while not to other companies.
This in turn brings down the value of Y, making it a cheaper take-over
target at a later date.

Given the transactions of supply and takeover are not at arms-length, is
this illegal by X, or just immoral?

Topic #6758 | Report this topic

ghostofsixerspast
Years ago

Mr Black,

is this possibly to do with the sixers sale?

Reply #75702 | Report this post

Joe M
Years ago

Mr Black

That is most definitely illegal and would full under the partnership and joint venture law as well as the Consumer protection legislation for fair trade. It also has a lot to do with price fixing and then the ACCC watchdog could investigate under the unfair practise and the trade practice act, division 1 of part V of the trade practise act prohibits corporations engaging in certain unfair trade practise, or section 51AA, 51Ab and 51AC of the TPA (prohibition on unconscionable conduct). This act expressly prohibits a trader engaging in conduct that can be defined as 'unconscionable' when supplying goods or service to consumers.

Hope that helps.

Reply #75704 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

ghostofsixerspast - don't be an idiot.

Stop trying to sling mud where mud has no place to be.

Reply #75705 | Report this post

Joe M
Years ago

Mr Black,

If this is just out of curiosity then that's fine and I hope I have help. If your in need of some serious legal advice as you have been duped out of some money by a shonky deal, seek legal help as only a fool represents himself, as the say goes

Reply #75706 | Report this post

flatshot
Years ago

Meanwhile company Y obtains product from an alternate source develops company to a new level and company Y is now so successful that it launches a counter takeover for company X. But company X turned out to be a shell company... empty on the inside... that is no yoke...

Reply #75707 | Report this post

thedoctor
Years ago

I require money in trust before providing advice. :)

But, on the face of it, the described scenario would be illegal.

Reply #75708 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

thedoctor - "I require money in trust before providing advice"

you must be a lawyer! haha

Reply #75711 | Report this post

Isaac
Years ago

ghostofsixerspast - someone else has implied the same to me privately, but I can't see how it correlates were it referencing Paul Bell's involvement. Yes, he has three players moving interstate while he has a standing interest in buying the team. e.g.,

X then with-holds supply, and up's prices of its products to company Y, while not to other companies.

Forman and Rychart were not offered to Adelaide at a higher price at all. If it is referencing those scenarios, it's making some wayward assumptions.

Reply #75723 | Report this post

TK
Years ago

Is there a "supply agreement" between X and Y. If yes then supplies are to be made at the Agreed schedule; and if X supplies at a greater amount "while not to other companies" then that is illegal. If there is no "supply agreement" then Trade Practices as per Joe M is the likely.

Reply #75727 | Report this post

TK
Years ago

Isaac, #75723 puts you on thin ice.

Reply #75729 | Report this post

Isaac
Years ago

How so?

Reply #75731 | Report this post

TK
Years ago

You mention a name to a senario.

Reply #75733 | Report this post

Hoops

NH - question for a Lawyer

Recent Posts