New York et al. v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America (S.D.N.Y. 1989)
Plaintiff States sued for damages and injunctive relief on their own behalf and as parens patriae. The complaint alleged that Defendant conspired to fix or maintain the resale price for which dealers were able to sell Matsushita?s products. The case was settled. Plaintiff States were awarded damages and injunctive relief.
New York et al. v. Salton, Inc. No. 02-CV-7096 (S.D.N.Y, 2002), 265 F. Supp 2d 310 (2003)
States complaint against Salton, Inc. (Salton), alleged that the company conspired to set a floor price with retailers of its contact grill, the George Foreman (GF) Grill. In some cases, noncompliance with the floor price led to suspension of shipments of GF grills to retailers. Also, Plaintiff States alleged that Salton prohibited its retailers from selling competitive contact grills.
New York et al. v. Reebok International, Ltd; 1995-1 Trade Cas. 71,558 (CCH), 96 F.3d 44, 903 F. Supp. 532 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Reebok International Ltd. (Reebok) and The Rockport
Company (Rockport) conspired with certain dealers to set the minimum retail prices at which retailers were permitted to sell Reebok and Rockport women?s athletic footwear to consumers.
Florida, et al. v. Nine West Group, Inc. and John Doe, 1-500, 80 F. Supp.2d 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000)
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Nine West Group (Nine West) conspired with unnamed dealers to set the minimum resale price at
which retailers were permitted to sell women’s dress shoes to customers.
In the Matter of GSI Commerce, Inc.
Alleged restraints by provider of e-commerce services on prices and advertising on the Internet.
New York et al. v. Federated Department Stores
Anticompetitive effects posed by proposed merger of two of the nation’s largest department store retailers
In re Towne BMW, In re Holtz House of Vehicles, Inc.
Alleged collusion, market allocation, and price-fixing between dealers of BMW automobiles in upstate New York.
In the Matter of Investigation of Simon Property Group, Assurance No. 17-154 (Aug. 21, 2017)
New York entered into a settlement with Simon Property Group that prohibits Simon from using anticompetitive tactics to thwart the development of competing outlet centers in New York City. Simon agreed to immediately modify contractual restrictions that have prevented retailers at Woodbury Common center from opening outlet stores in New York City locations. According to the Attorney General, Simon had monopoly power in the market for retail space in outlet centers in the New York City area. The investigation also confirmed that many retailers at Woodbury Common wished to open additional outlets in New York City, but were largely prevented from doing so by so-called radius restrictions in their leases at Woodbury Common. These clauses typically restrict retailers (by threat of a substantial penalty) from opening a second store within 60 air miles of Woodbury, creating a vast 11,000 square mile zone in which Simon faced little effective competition from other outlet centers. In addition to a $945,000 monetary payment to New York State, Simon agreed to revise existing leases to remove radius restrictions that would otherwise prevent outlet center development and for the next 10 years, Simon has agreed to cease using radius restrictions, or other exclusionary tactics, that might deter retailers from opening additional outlet stores. Simon has also agreed to the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure compliance with the terms of the settlement. To be overseen by the Attorney General’s office.
New York v. St. Francis Hospital, 94 F. Supp.2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), No.98-Civ. 0939
Plaintiff state of New York, alleging that two hospitals in Dutchess County, New York, were engaged in illegal price-fixing and market allocation through joint rate negotiations, sued for injunctive relief.
New York v. Urethane Applicators, Inc.; No. Cv 94 2705 (E.D.N.Y.).
New York sued several roofing contractors on behalf of the state and its political subdivisions, including the Connetquot Central School District on Long Island, for injunctive relief, civil penalties and treble damages, alleging bid-rigging and market allocation.