1. Have the parties committed a violation of any anti-trust laws? What laws may apply in this situation, and is the fact that SurgiPro agreed to consider the plan significant?

2. How is MDC’s proposed plan best characterized in the context of antitrust law? 

Assume that SurgiPro rejects MDC’s proposal and instead proposes that they agree that SurgiPro will sell its products only to customers in the mid-Atlantic states and that MDC will sell its products only to customers in the southern states.

3. Which, if any, antitrust laws does SurgiPro’s proposal violate?

4. If SurgiPro and MDC are sued by a competitor, should the court use the per se standard or the rule of reason? Why? 

Suppose that both SurgiPro and MDC purchase raw materials for their products from SupplyCo. SurgiPro notifies SupplyCo that it will no longer purchase the supplier’s raw materials unless SupplyCo ceases its sales to MDC. SupplyCo agrees because it does not want to lose the substantial revenue from SurgiPro. 

5. Which, if any, antitrust laws does this action violate?

6. Assume that SurgiPro wishes to merge with MDC. What antitrust laws will need to be considered before entering into a merger agreement?

SurgiPro is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of surgical instruments to physician groups and hospitals. After several decades in the market, SurgiPro has a 75 percent market share in the surgical instru-ment industry. SurgiPro was approached by Medical Devices Corporation (MDC), a competitor of SurgiPro with only a 5 percent market share. MDC proposed that the two companies cease undercutting each other on the retail price of scalpels. MDC also proposed that each company sell only 1,000 scalpels per month at a set price of no lower than $15 per scalpel. MDC reasoned that the sale of scalpels had such a low profit margin that the only way either SurgiPro or MDC could make a profit on the product would be through this plan. An executive at SurgiPro agreed to consider the plan.