Just to clear up some confusion. 1. it doesn't matter whether the retailers actually implemented the conditions of an agreement or not (increasing prices from 1 October). All that needs to be proved is that it was agreed. 2. proving a collusion case does not require "getting all your ducks in a row" in the sense that it is incredibly complicated. Being prosecuted for collusion is much simpler than other anti-competitive behaviour as the authorities don't need to show an effect. They just need to show an agreement, which clearly they have already. 3. a 10% penalty may not be much, but it's enough to hurt financially (the point is not to shut down businesses but to deter them from making these agreements ever again). Tiger Brands suffered incredible reputational damage, one of the results actually being that a lot of good people resigned, adding to their financial woes. 4. if i was at that meeting, i would run straight to the Competition Commission to qualify for their leniency program to prevent the reputational damage (does anyone even remember that Premier was also involved in the bread cartel - no, because the media harps on about the fines, not the leniency applicants) and the fine that WILL result. I don't know how on earth the speaker at the meeting could say so definitively that that is not price-fixing. That meeting is the DEFINITION of price-fixing. It is COMPLETELY illegal!
