Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989 - Provides that in any civil action alleging a contract, combination, or conspiracy to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) under the Sherman Antitrust Act: (1) evidence that a person who sells a good or service to the claimant for resale received from a competitor a communication regarding price competition by the claimant and in response terminated the claimant as a buyer (or refused to supply such goods or services) shall be sufficient to raise the inference that such person and such competitor engaged in concerted action to set, change, or maintain prices in violation of such Act (in such case, a termination or refusal to supply is in response to a communication if such communication is a substantial contributing cause of such termination or refusal to supply); (2) the fact that the seller and the purchaser of a good or service entered into an agreement to set, change, or maintain prices shall be sufficient to constitute a violation of such Act; and (3) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to supply such other purchaser because of that purchaser's pricing policies shall constitute a violation of such Act, whether or not a specific price level is agreed upon. Provides that the provisions with respect to agreements to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) shall apply to civil actions commenced before enactment of this Act.
Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989
Bill journey · stage 2 of 5
Under committee review
What it doesSummary passed house amended (Apr 18, 1990)
Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989 - Provides that in any civil action alleging a contract, combination, or conspiracy to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) under the Sherman Antitrust Act: (1) evidence that a person who sells a good or service to the claimant for resale received from a competitor a communication regarding price competition by the claimant and in response terminated the claimant as a buyer (or refused to supply such goods or services) shall be sufficient to raise the inference that such person and such competitor engaged in concerted action to set, change, or maintain prices in violation of such Act (in such case, a termination or refusal to supply is in response to a communication if such communication is a substantial contributing cause of such termination or refusal to supply); (2) the fact that the seller and the purchaser of a good or service entered into an agreement to set, change, or maintain prices shall be sufficient to constitute a violation of such Act; and (3) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to supply such other purchaser because of that purchaser's pricing policies shall constitute a violation of such Act, whether or not a specific price level is agreed upon. Provides that the provisions with respect to agreements to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) shall apply to civil actions commenced before enactment of this Act.
What just happenedMay 17, 1990
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 556.
Who’s behind it
- May 17, 1990Calendars
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 556.
- May 17, 1990Discharge
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Judiciary Committee - May 17, 1990Committee14500
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Judiciary Committee - Apr 19, 1990IntroReferral
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Judiciary Committee - Apr 18, 1990FloorH38310
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH37100
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 235 - 157 (Roll No. 74).
- Apr 18, 1990Floor8000
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 235 - 157 (Roll No. 74).
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH36210
On motion to recommit Failed by voice vote.
Judiciary Committee - Apr 18, 1990FloorH35000
The previous question was ordered without objection.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH36200
Mr. Fish moved to recommit to Judiciary.
Judiciary Committee - Apr 18, 1990FloorH34400
The House adopted the amendment as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH35000
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH32600
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1236.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH8D000
Mr. Douglas suggested the absence of a quorum and a quorum call was ordered. Prior to the Call in Committee, the Chair announced that the time for a recorded vote on the pending Douglas amendment, if ordered, would be reduced to five minutes in length.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH8D000
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH32400
The Speaker designated the Honorable David E. Skaggs to act as Chairman of the Committee.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH32020
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 373 and Rule XXIII.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH8D000
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1236 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH30000
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 373.
- Apr 18, 1990FloorH1L220
Rule H. Res. 373 passed House.
- Apr 3, 1990FloorH1L210
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 373 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1236 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments.
- Mar 29, 1990CalendarsH12410
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 270.
- Mar 29, 1990CommitteeH12200
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 101-438.
Judiciary Committee - Mar 29, 1990Committee5000
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 101-438.
Judiciary Committee - Jun 20, 1989CommitteeH15000-B
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Judiciary Committee - Jun 20, 1989CommitteeH19000
Ordered to be Reported.
Judiciary Committee - Jun 15, 1989CommitteeH22000
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Subcommittee - Jun 15, 1989CommitteeH23000
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee.
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Subcommittee - Apr 14, 1989CommitteeH13000
Executive Comment Received from Justice.
Judiciary Committee - Mar 23, 1989CommitteeH12000
Executive Comment Requested from Justice.
Judiciary Committee - Mar 20, 1989CommitteeH11000
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law.
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Subcommittee - Mar 2, 1989IntroReferralH11100
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Judiciary Committee - Mar 2, 1989IntroReferralIntro-H
Introduced in House
- Mar 2, 1989IntroReferral1000
Introduced in House
Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989 - Provides that in any civil action alleging a contract, combination, or conspiracy to set, change, or maintain prices (other than a maximum price) under the Sherman Antitrust Act: (1) evidence that a person who sells a good or service to the claimant for resale received from a competitor a communication regarding price competition by the claimant and in response terminated the claimant as a buyer (or refused to supply such goods or services) shall be sufficient to raise the inference that such person and such competitor engaged in concerted action to set, change, or maintain prices in violation of such Act (in such case, a termination or refusal to supply is in response to a communication if such communication is a substantial contributing cause of such termination or refusal to supply); (2) the fact that the seller and the purchaser of a good or service entered into an agreement shall be sufficient to constitute a violation of such Act; and (3) an agreement between the seller and the purchaser to terminate another purchaser as a dealer or to refuse to supply such other purchaser because of that purchaser's pricing policies shall constitute a violation of such Act, whether or not a specific price level is agreed upon.