The New York District Court enters a consent decree in a case brought by Attorneys General of New York, Illinois and Michigan, requiring furniture manufacturer to terminate alleged minimum resale price maintenance program (Herman Miller)

District court case could affect implementation of minimum resale price maintenance programs. Sellers must still exercise great caution when designing minimum resale price programs for their resellers in the United States following the recently settled New York v. Herman Miller, Inc. case. This is despite the Supreme Court of the United States' landmark ruling just last year in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. that minimum resale price maintenance (MRPM) programs are no longer illegal per se but are to be evaluated under the Rule of Reason by weighing their anticompetitive harm against their pro-competitive benefits. The Herman Miller case, which was brought by the Attorneys General of the States of New York, Illinois and Michigan, alleged that Herman Miller,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago)
  • McDermott Will & Emery (Chicago)

Quotation

Joseph F. Winterscheid, Stephen Wu, Joel G. Chefitz, The New York District Court enters a consent decree in a case brought by Attorneys General of New York, Illinois and Michigan, requiring furniture manufacturer to terminate alleged minimum resale price maintenance program (Herman Miller), 24 March 2008, e-Competitions Bulletin March 2008, Art. N° 52954

Visites 131

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues