Question 1

Conglomerate mergers have been challenged only when:

Accepted Answer

A)  one of the merging firms would be highly likely to enter the other firm's market.
B)  the merged company would be disproportionately large, compared with the smallest competitors in its industry.
C)  (a)  and (b)  are correct.
D)  None of the above.

Question 2

Creativ-Design, Inc.has 68% of the market share in a particular geographic region for one of its products.Does Creativ-Design have a monopoly? Explain.

Accepted Answer

No exact percentage of market share has ...

Question 3

It is per se illegal under the Sherman Act for sellers to agree to a maximum price, but not a minimum price.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 4

The rule of reason test, under the Sherman Antitrust Act:

Accepted Answer

A)  considers the makeup of a relevant industry.
B)  does not consider the defendant's position in that industry.
C)  considers the defendant's need for the financial gain from the restraint of trade.
D)  does not consider competitor's ability to respond to the challenged practice of restraint of trade.

Question 5

Margaret tells the members of the Raleigh Association of Restaurant Owners that they will be able to get a better price on linen supplies (tablecloths, napkins)  if they will deal with one supplier rather than split their business between two.They all know Margaret deals with Niagara Linen rather than Cayuga.Under the Sherman Act, if they all sign contracts with Niagara:

Accepted Answer

A)  there is no violation since there is no express agreement to boycott Cayuga.
B)  illegality may be implied from this conduct.
C)  there is no concerted action.
D)  this is horizontal market allocation.

Question 6

A "Vertical Restraint Index" is a measure of relative market share.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 7

To find a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, if sufficient monopoly power has been proved, the law must then show that the firm has engaged in unfair conduct.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 8

The courts have interpreted the Sherman Act as prohibiting all monopolies.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 9

Characterizing a type of restraint as per se illegal significantly affects the prosecution of an antitrust suit.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 10

The National Cooperative Research Act provides that:

Accepted Answer

A)  joint ventures in the research and development of new technology are to be judged under the rule of reason test.
B)  treble damages apply to all joint ventures formed in violation of the antitrust laws.
C)  joint venture participants must under all circumstances report their intent to the Justice Department.
D)  joint ventures formed to divide markets and fix prices are not illegal.

Question 11

Under the 2004 amendments, corporate offenders who violate Sections 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act face fines of up to $100 million per violation.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 12

Under the Sherman Act, price fixing is the primary and most serious example of a per se violation.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 13

One business by itself cannot violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 14

The principal objective of antitrust law governing mergers is to maintain competition.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 15

An agreement between a manufacturer and a wholesaler is horizontal.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 16

Failure to comply with Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act:

Accepted Answer

A)  is a crime and can result in imprisonment.
B)  may subject an individual to a fine of up to $1 million per violation.
C)  may subject a corporation to a fine of $100 million per violation.
D)  All of the above.

Question 17

A restraint involving collaboration among competitors at the same level in the chain of distribution is:

Accepted Answer

A)  a vertical restraint.
B)  a horizontal restraint.
C)  price fixing.
D)  a trust.

Question 18

The "rule of reason" requires the courts to balance the anticompetitive effects of behavior in restraint of trade with its positive effects on competition.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 19

If United Widgets lowers its price to all buyers of 10 or more widgets, it is not a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 20

The Robinson-Patman Act adds to the Clayton Act merger provisions.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Exam 43: Antitrust

A "Vertical Restraint Index" is a measure of relative market share.

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

The principal objective of antitrust law governing mergers is to maintain competition.

Correct Answer
verified

Failure to comply with Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act:

Correct Answer
verified

Characterizing a type of restraint as per se illegal significantly affects the prosecution of an antitrust suit.

Correct Answer
verified

The National Cooperative Research Act provides that:

Correct Answer
verified

Conglomerate mergers have been challenged only when:

Correct Answer
verified

An agreement between a manufacturer and a wholesaler is horizontal.

Correct Answer
verified

One business by itself cannot violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Correct Answer
verified

Creativ-Design, Inc.has 68% of the market share in a particular geographic region for one of its products.Does Creativ-Design have a monopoly? Explain.

Correct Answer
verified
No exact percentage of market share has ...
View Answer

If United Widgets lowers its price to all buyers of 10 or more widgets, it is not a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.

Correct Answer
verified

A restraint involving collaboration among competitors at the same level in the chain of distribution is:

Correct Answer
verified

Under the Sherman Act, price fixing is the primary and most serious example of a per se violation.

Correct Answer
verified

The rule of reason test, under the Sherman Antitrust Act:

Correct Answer
verified

It is per se illegal under the Sherman Act for sellers to agree to a maximum price, but not a minimum price.

Correct Answer
verified

To find a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, if sufficient monopoly power has been proved, the law must then show that the firm has engaged in unfair conduct.

Correct Answer
verified

Under the 2004 amendments, corporate offenders who violate Sections 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act face fines of up to $100 million per violation.

Correct Answer
verified

The courts have interpreted the Sherman Act as prohibiting all monopolies.

Correct Answer
verified

The Robinson-Patman Act adds to the Clayton Act merger provisions.

Correct Answer
verified

The "rule of reason" requires the courts to balance the anticompetitive effects of behavior in restraint of trade with its positive effects on competition.

Correct Answer
verified

Exam 43: Antitrust

A "Vertical Restraint Index" is a measure of relative market share.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The principal objective of antitrust law governing mergers is to maintain competition.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Failure to comply with Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act:

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Characterizing a type of restraint as per se illegal significantly affects the prosecution of an antitrust suit.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The National Cooperative Research Act provides that:

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Conglomerate mergers have been challenged only when:

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

An agreement between a manufacturer and a wholesaler is horizontal.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

One business by itself cannot violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Creativ-Design, Inc.has 68% of the market share in a particular geographic region for one of its products.Does Creativ-Design have a monopoly? Explain.

Correct AnswerverifiedNo exact percentage of market share has ...View AnswerShow Answer

If United Widgets lowers its price to all buyers of 10 or more widgets, it is not a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

A restraint involving collaboration among competitors at the same level in the chain of distribution is:

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Under the Sherman Act, price fixing is the primary and most serious example of a per se violation.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The rule of reason test, under the Sherman Antitrust Act:

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

It is per se illegal under the Sherman Act for sellers to agree to a maximum price, but not a minimum price.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

To find a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, if sufficient monopoly power has been proved, the law must then show that the firm has engaged in unfair conduct.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Under the 2004 amendments, corporate offenders who violate Sections 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act face fines of up to $100 million per violation.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The courts have interpreted the Sherman Act as prohibiting all monopolies.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The Robinson-Patman Act adds to the Clayton Act merger provisions.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

The "rule of reason" requires the courts to balance the anticompetitive effects of behavior in restraint of trade with its positive effects on competition.

Correct AnswerverifiedShow Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified
No exact percentage of market share has ...
View Answer

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified

Correct Answer
verified