In August and September 2018, the Federal Court of Justice imposed fines of $11.95 million on a large number of companies, with a director of one of the companies personally ordered to pay US$350,000 for illegal exclusivity clauses in distribution agreements between companies. The ACCC/Oakmoore1 case resulted in the heaviest sentence ever imposed on an individual for violating the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). It is also the first time that the Court has imposed a sanction against a company for being „knowingly concerned“ and violating the exclusive trade provisions. When companies do exclusive business, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is interested in attacking and punishing offenders. Ampelite Australia Pty Ltd (Ampelite), Palram Australia Pty Ltd, israeli parent company Palram Industries (1990) Ltd (Palram) and Oakmoore Pty Ltd, were traded as EGRs. These industry giants have recently been convicted of participating in exclusive cases with some of their directors Rod Horwill (of EGR), Talia Horesh (von Palram) and Hendrikus Verhagen (by Ampelite). Background Ampelite and Palram are two of Australia`s largest suppliers of polycarbonate roofs. They supply the product primarily to retail stores. At the end of 2008, EGR (a competing producer of polycarbs) attempted to enter the market in order to underperform at a lower cost between Ampelite and Palram and gain more market share.
Before entering the market, EGR contacted Ampelite and Palram in the hope of reaching a supply agreement with them. Both suppliers were extremely concerned about the EGR and the impact that the competitive attempt would have on their profit margins. At the time, EGR stated that it would provide polycarb directly to retailers competing with Ampelite and Palram, unless they received sufficient commitments from them. Over a five-year period, from 2008 to 2013, these companies entered into and implemented a series of agreements aimed at preventing or limiting the supply of polycarb to retailers. Palram and Ampelite each acknowledged that their behaviour should significantly reduce competition in the market. In accordance with the supply contracts with the EGR: As a general rule, a company seeking a high level of exclusivity will be on safer ground if it is not a niche supplier or a large national company (i.e. it is market-owned), if the agreement is less than three years, if exclusivity can be justified to commit significant capital and if there is no other agreement. , z.B. a co-location arrangement. If not, ask for advice. When a company is a niche supplier, has a geographic connection to a market, or is generally one of the most important players in its market, it must bear in mind that a demand for exclusivity increases barriers to entry and may make it more difficult for competitors to compete.
This could result in legal action against aggrieved competitors who have not won the transaction or an aggrieved customer who wishes to enter into a contract that is no longer desired. In economics and legal sciences, an exclusive business is created when a supplier involves the buyer by limiting the buyer`s rights over the choice of what he acts, who and where he acts.  In most countries, including the United States, Australia and Europe, this is against the law if it has a significant effect on a strong distortion of competition in a sector.[ If the outlets are owned by the supplier, the exclusive trade is due to vertical integration if the outlets are independent, the exclusive trade (in the United States)  is illegal under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, but if it is registered and approved. While the agreements imposed by sellers focus primarily on the exhaustive literature on exclusive trade, some exclusivity agreements are imposed by buyers instead of sellers This is typically a seller who, in the literature, makes exclusive transactions on the exclusive trade.