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.
New York v. New York State Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers, Inc., 1980-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 63,074 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979)
Plaintiff State sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant, New York State Society of Ophthalmic Dispensers, Inc., boycotted eyeglass lens and frame manufacturers that participated in pre-paid vision care plans.
New York v. Service Corporation International, 99 Civ. 11391 (JSM) (S.D.N.Y. final judgment, Nov. 19, 1999)
New York challenged a series of acquisitions that Service Corporation International (SCI) made of funeral homes in New York City that serve the Jewish community, allegedly leading to monopolization of and high prices in that market. The matter was settled by a consent decree requiring SCI to divest a funeral business in Manhattan, Plaza Memorial Chapel, plus two funeral homes in Brooklyn.
New York v. Daicel Chemical Industries et al, No. 403878/02 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty., Sept. 24, 2004)
Charges seventeen-year international conspiracy to fix the price of sorbates, a preservative used in many foods and beverages.
New York v. Martin Schlossberg and McReg Industries, Inc. d/b/a Estelle’s Dressy Dresses (NY Sup. Ct., Index No. 02-30814)
Anticompetitive conduct in the sale of formal women’s apparel on Long Island.
New York v. Julius Nasso Concrete Corp. et al., 1999-2 Trade Cas. ¶72,767; 202 F.3d 82; Nos. 98-9218, 98-9226, 98-9262 (2d Cir. 2000)
New York was successful in its appeal to have trial court decision reversed in concrete construction bid-rigging case
In re Western New York Coupon Litigation, No. 1:97-cv-00707 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 1997)
New York charged nine major grocery manufacturers and The Wegmans Food Market Chain with conspiring to eliminate coupons.
New York v. Cedar Park Concrete Corp., NY v. Century-Maxim Construction Corp, 665 F.Supp. 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); 684 F.Supp. 1229 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); 741 F.Supp. 494 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
New York, alleging bid-rigging and market-allocation, sued for treble damages under the Clayton Act and the New York General Business Law (Donnelly Act), for injunctive relief, and civil penalties.
