Opinion ID: 354255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alleged Antitrust Violations

Text: 11 The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are that the defendants have since 1960 unlawfully engaged in a conspiracy to restrain trade, and have illegally entered into and maintained contracts and agreements in restraint of trade. In the first claim (the state claim) of their amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that these violations have consisted of: 12 (C)ontinuing contracts, agreements, understandings, concert of action or courses of conduct among the defendants to do the following: 13 (a) Fix, maintain and stabilize prices for the sale of school bus bodies to the State of Alabama and local agencies within said State purchasing the same at artificially high, noncompetitive levels; and 14 (b) Allocate customers and sub-markets in such trade or commerce among themselves; and 15 (c) Not compete in such trade or commerce. 16 App. 95. 17 The national claim is almost identical, 14 but rather than limiting the scope of the claim to the State of Alabama and local agencies within said State, the national claim alleges violations on behalf of all similarly situated governmental or public bodies or agencies within the United States except for the State of Georgia, which have been and will continue to be injured in their business and property by the contracts, agreements, conspiracies, and course of conduct herein described. App. 88. 18 The plaintiffs, unfortunately, have not been very specific in explaining how and why the defendants conspired to fix prices, etc. Their lack of specificity at this stage might be attributed to the fact that they have not been allowed any discovery in this area. However, the plaintiffs do set forth in their amended complaint some generalized descriptions of how they perceive the defendants to have acted illegally. For example, in their state claim the plaintiffs initially contend that certain of the defendants have agreed among themselves not to sell school bus bodies and not to compete for the sale of school bus bodies with respect to purchases by the State of Alabama or any board of education or other public agency within Alabama. The plaintiffs allege that from time to time some defendants have submitted bids to county boards of education or other public agencies within Alabama, but such bids were not competitive and were submitted solely to give the appearance of competition. App. 96. Secondly, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants have each year fixed a price range for the sale of school bus bodies to the State of Alabama and to county boards of education within Alabama. The defendants used this price range to rotate bids among themselves for the purpose of allocating among themselves certain percentages of the annual sales to the Alabama purchasers. App. 96. The plaintiffs also contend that the price range fixed each year within the State of Alabama has consistently exceeded the prices at which buses manufactured by these defendants have been sold to other public agencies outside of Alabama, and that these prices are artificially maintained at a non-competitive high level. The national claim contains the same averments as the state claim and alleges generally that the illegal patterns of conduct which took place in Alabama were implemented in each individual state in the country.