The ACCC alleges that between January and April 2000, Visy and Amcor made a contract, arrangement or understanding to:
*permit each other to maintain their then current share of the CFP market *set a minimum per tonne price for CFP *collaborate to increase the price for CFP *refrain from entering into contracts for the supply of CFP with each other’s principal customers *compensate each other when one entered into a CFP supply contract with a principal customer of the other by permitting the acquisition of another account or accounts equivalent to the account lost (for example, in market share or tonnage terms),
Visy and Amcor allegedly gave effect to the Overarching Understanding in a series of meetings and telephone conversations between their executives that occurred between April 2000 and November 2004. The ACCC’s Statement of Claim alleges that during those meetings and telephone conversations, the Overarching Understanding was described as involving “the prevention of major market shifts”, maintaining “stability in the marketplace” and allowing each company to sell CFP at “sustainable price levels”.
The ACCC alleges that between 2000 and 2004 Visy and Amcor made, and gave effect to, contracts, arrangements and understandings: *to increase the price for CFP supplied to non-contract customers by an agreed percentage (the Price Increase Understandings) *to refrain from entering into CFP supply contracts with each other’s principal customers (the Price Understandings), and *which provided that where Visy (or Amcor) had entered into a contract for the supply of CFP with one of Amcor’s (or Visy’s) customers, Visy (or Amcor) would compensate Amcor (or Visy) by allowing it to enter into a CFP supply contract with one of Visy’s (or Amcor’s) customers (the Compensation Understandings).
In one instance pleaded in relation to the Price Understandings, it is alleged that Amcor sought to obtain an increase in its prices to one of its principal customers of 54% over the term of a proposed supply agreement. In relation to one of the Compensation Understandings, it is alleged that Visy submitted a proposal to one of its existing customers (whom it had agreed to ‘give’ to Amcor) with prices that were 37% higher than those in the existing supply contract.
It is also alleged that despite the customer stating that there definitely seemed to have been a mistake with Visy’s pricing and that Visy’s pricing was “crazy”, the Visy representative said the prices were the prices he had been given and that he was sorry but there was nothing he could do about them.
