I was hoping someone would respond. This is from Kubota's 2006 financial report.
Legal proceedings
In May 1998, the Company was investigated by the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (the “FTCJ”) for an alleged violation of the Law Concerning Prohibition of Private Monopoly and Preservation of Fair Trade (the “Anti-Monopoly Law”) relating to participation in fixing the shares of ductile iron straight pipe orders in Japan. The Company received a cease and desist recommendation from the FTCJ in March 1999, which was accepted by the Company in April 1999.
The FTCJ also brought a criminal accusation alleging violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law against the Company and 3 of its employees, who were indicted in the Tokyo High Court in March 1999. On February 24, 2000, the Company was fined ¥130 million, and the 3 employees were given 6-10 months prison sentences, suspended for 2 years.
In the meanwhile, the Company received a surcharge order of ¥7,072 million from the FTCJ. The Company has challenged this order and filed a petition for the initiation of hearing procedures that were started in March 2000. Under Section 49 of the then Anti-Monopoly Law, upon initiation of the procedures the surcharge order lost effect. In addition, Section 7-2 of the then Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates that surcharges are imposed in cases where price cartels or cartels that influence prices by curtailing the volume of supply are carried out. The Company believes that the alleged share cartel does not meet the requirement of Section 7-2, and has not established any provision for the ultimate liability, if any, which may result from the settlement of this matter. An unfavorable outcome from this issue could materially affect the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in a given year. The Company is not able to estimate the likelihood of such unfavorable outcome. As of this filing date, the Company is still in the process of the hearing procedures
"So to presume that they would "stick it to their customers" may be very inaccurate"
My presumption is based on what looks to be some history of petential abuses.
This is public information and can be seen here http://www.kubota.co.jp/ir/financial/sec/2002_pdf/08.pdf
I got the quote above from their 2006 filings which also referenced that http://www.kubota.co.jp/ir/english/library/annual/ar_06t_en/pdf/01.pdf.
OH well, I am not going to let dealers just say whatever and get away with it. I will be resolved to take all those statements to task.
Maka
Legal proceedings
In May 1998, the Company was investigated by the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (the “FTCJ”) for an alleged violation of the Law Concerning Prohibition of Private Monopoly and Preservation of Fair Trade (the “Anti-Monopoly Law”) relating to participation in fixing the shares of ductile iron straight pipe orders in Japan. The Company received a cease and desist recommendation from the FTCJ in March 1999, which was accepted by the Company in April 1999.
The FTCJ also brought a criminal accusation alleging violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law against the Company and 3 of its employees, who were indicted in the Tokyo High Court in March 1999. On February 24, 2000, the Company was fined ¥130 million, and the 3 employees were given 6-10 months prison sentences, suspended for 2 years.
In the meanwhile, the Company received a surcharge order of ¥7,072 million from the FTCJ. The Company has challenged this order and filed a petition for the initiation of hearing procedures that were started in March 2000. Under Section 49 of the then Anti-Monopoly Law, upon initiation of the procedures the surcharge order lost effect. In addition, Section 7-2 of the then Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates that surcharges are imposed in cases where price cartels or cartels that influence prices by curtailing the volume of supply are carried out. The Company believes that the alleged share cartel does not meet the requirement of Section 7-2, and has not established any provision for the ultimate liability, if any, which may result from the settlement of this matter. An unfavorable outcome from this issue could materially affect the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in a given year. The Company is not able to estimate the likelihood of such unfavorable outcome. As of this filing date, the Company is still in the process of the hearing procedures
"So to presume that they would "stick it to their customers" may be very inaccurate"
My presumption is based on what looks to be some history of petential abuses.
This is public information and can be seen here http://www.kubota.co.jp/ir/financial/sec/2002_pdf/08.pdf
I got the quote above from their 2006 filings which also referenced that http://www.kubota.co.jp/ir/english/library/annual/ar_06t_en/pdf/01.pdf.
OH well, I am not going to let dealers just say whatever and get away with it. I will be resolved to take all those statements to task.
Maka