Multi part question on Anticompetitive Behavior

For many years, Bullock Corporation was a profitable company in a highly-competitive U.S. domestic market for widgets. However, during the past decade it has suffered a tremendous decline in market share due to an invasion of widget sales from Korean and Chinese producers.

1. In order to counteract its dwindling market share in the United States, Bullock has implemented a policy of insisting that its independent retail dealers adhere to strict pricing guidelines and confine their marketing activities to designated territories. It has reinforced this strategy by circulating suggested resale prices to each dealer and warning that it will terminate any dealer who fails to follow them. When Bullock discovered that one of its independent dealers was selling below the suggested price guidelines and servicing customers outside of its territory, it immediately terminated the dealer's franchise. Discuss the legality of the action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

2. How would the analysis of this termination differ if, instead of suggested guidelines and territories, Bullock had required each of the independent dealers to sign agreements to remain in their territories and follow the price guidelines? Is it likely that the termination would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act? Clearly explain.

3. Despite such efforts to regain market share, Bullock was largely unsuccessful in its attempts to compete with the Korean and Chinese companies. Accordingly, it carefully studied the practices of the foreign competitors to see if it could duplicate them. Each time one of the foreign companies lowered its price, Bullock lowered its price to the exact same level. Each time the foreign company introduced a new sales promotion, Bullock offered the same incentive. Discuss the legality of this new strategy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

4. When Bullock's new efforts to compete failed to generate increased sales or market share, it ultimately met with several of its closest U.S. competitors. Together they devised shared marketing plans to offset the Korean and Chinese competition. The result of this cooperation was two-fold: (1) the U.S. companies began to regain their market share at the expense of the foreign competitors; and (2) the overall price of widgets to U.S. consumers declined while the quality of service accompanying those sales actually increased. Discuss the legality of this new strategy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

5. As Bullock's market share vis--vis all of its competitors began to increase, it decided that price competition might actually be a proper strategy. Accordingly, it began offering incentives to its independent retailers to lower their resale price. To augment this strategy, each month Bullock provided generous rebates on its wholesale prices to whichever retailer purchased the most widgets from it that particular month. Discuss the legality of this strategy.