State v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd.
Decision Date | 05 July 2007 |
Docket Number | 9392. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 05827,840 N.Y.S.2d 8,42 A.D.3d 301 |
Parties | STATE OF NEW YORK, by Eliot Spitzer, Appellant, v. DAICEL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff New York State Attorney General asserts that between January 1979 and June 1997, defendants, who manufacture food additives called sorbates, which are preservatives used to extend the shelf life of commercially sold food products, engaged in an illegal conspiracy to fix and inflate the price of sorbates. Indeed, many of the defendants have pleaded guilty to federal criminal antitrust charges and paid millions of dollars in fines for participating in this price-fixing conspiracy. In addition, private class action suits filed against these defendants in various state and federal courts around the country have been settled for additional millions more.
In this action, commenced in October 2002, plaintiff pleaded causes of action under (1) the Donnelly Act (General Business Law § 340 et seq.); (2) Executive Law § 63 (12), which authorizes the Attorney General to sue persons engaging in repeated or persistent fraudulent or illegal acts in transacting business; (3) General Business Law § 349, the consumer protection law which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in business; and (4) the common law of unjust enrichment. The relief sought under the Donnelly Act included both equitable relief and damages on behalf of New York consumers, as well as civil penalties pursuant to General Business Law § 342-a.
In dismissing the first cause of action, which alleged Donnelly Act violations, the motion court asserted that the claim was brought solely on behalf of indirect purchasers, and reasoned that the amendment to the Donnelly Act which permitted claims by or on behalf of indirect purchasers (General Business Law § 340 [6]) did not go into effect until 1998 (see L 1998, ch 653, § 1, eff Dec. 23, 1998), and should not be retroactively applied (see Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577 [1998]; Dorfman v Leidner, 150 AD2d 935 [1989], affd 76 NY2d 956 [1990]). To the extent the claim is on behalf of indirect purchasers for compensatory damages, we affirm the dismissal, agreeing that the amendment of section 340 (6) may not be given retroactive application. Generally, a statute is construed as prospective only absent a clear expression of an intent that it be retroactive (Jacobus v Colgate, 217 NY 235, 240 [1916]). Language in the statute that it shall "take effect immediately" does not support retroactive application (see Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., supra). Even remedial statutes are applied prospectively where they establish new rights, or where retroactive application would impair a previously available defense (see Dorfman v Leidner, supra). We view the amendment of section 340 (6) as having created new rights for indirect purchasers to sue for antitrust violations and, in so doing, potentially interfered with defenses which would have been available to defendants at the time of the alleged Donnelly Act violations (see Lennon v Philip Morris Cos., 189 Misc 2d 577, 585-586 [2001]).
However, unlike the portion of the Donnelly Act claim made on behalf of indirect purchasers seeking compensatory damages for financial injury caused by the price-fixing, a portion of the Donnelly Act claim was brought on behalf of the State itself, as sovereign, and seeks imposition of civil penalties pursuant to General Business Law § 342-a. Indeed, at oral argument of the reargument motion counsel for defendants acknowledged that the civil penalties claim would survive the dismissal of the compensatory damages claim; while defendants now point out that their notices of motion explicitly covered the section 342-a claim, at the very least, the concession at argument acknowledged that both claims were interposed in the Donnelly Act cause of action, and that one could survive even if the other did not.
As to defendants' contention that the complaint failed to allege acts in New York State as required by section 342-a, viewing the complaint liberally and giving plaintiff the benefit of all appropriate inferences (see Jericho Group, Ltd. v Midtown Dev., L.P., 32 AD3d 294, 298 [2006]), the issue of whether the facts entitle the Attorney General to relief under this section should be addressed on the merits rather than at the pleading stage.
Plaintiff's second and third causes of action, under Executive Law § 63 (12) and General Business Law § 349, were properly found to be time-barred by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Unkechauge Nation, 06-CV-1260 (CBA).
...between plaintiff and defendant is too attenuated to support an unjust enrichment claim); State ex rel. Spitzer v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd., 42 A.D.3d 301, 840 N.Y.S.2d 8, 12 (1st Dep't 2007) (same); In re Canon Cameras, No. 05 Civ. 7233, 2006 WL 1751245, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 20......
-
In re Senders
...allege price-fixing, but do not allege any misrepresentation directed at the indirect purchasers. New York v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 42 A.D.3d 301, 840 N.Y.S.2d 8 (2007) (noting that the “provision applies to conduct premised on the deception of consumers”). Accord Paltre v. Gen. Motors......
-
In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig.
...allege price-fixing, but do not allege any misrepresentation directed at the indirect purchasers. New York v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 42 A.D.3d 301, 840 N.Y.S.2d 8 (2007) (noting that the “provision applies to conduct premised on the deception of consumers”). Accord Paltre v. Gen. Motors......
-
In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.
...section 349, but only if it is deceptive.” New Motor Vehicles, 350 F.Supp.2d at 197;see also New York v. Daicel Chem. Indus., Ltd., 42 A.D.3d 301, 303, 840 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N.Y.App.Div.2007) (“... General Business Law § 349 ... only applies to anti-competitive conduct that is premised on the dec......
-
New York. Practice Text
...STAT. LAW § 51 (comment) (“a statute framed in future words, such as ‘shall’ or ‘hereafter,’ is construed as prospective only”). 271. 840 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). 272. Id. at 11. See also Lennon v. Philip Morris Cos., 734 N.Y.S.2d 374 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001). 273. State v. Horsemen’s ......
-
New York
...STAT. LAW § 51 (comment) (“a statute framed in future words, such as ‘shall’ or ‘hereafter,’ is construed as prospective only”). 269. 840 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). 270. Id. at 11. See also Lennon v. Philip Morris Cos., 734 N.Y.S.2d 374 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001). 271. State v. Horsemen’s ......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Cardwell, 718 A.2d 954 (Conn. 1998), 787 State v. Cortelle Corp., 341 N.E.2d 223 (N.Y. 1975), 1044 State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., 840 N.Y.S. 2d 8 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007), 1044 State v. Directory Pub. Services, Inc., 1996 WL 12674 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996), 954 State v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2007 WL ......
-
State Consumer Protection Laws
...one court has applied the same three-year statute of limitations that governs claims under the NYCPA. State v. Daicel Chem. Indus., 840 N.Y.S. 2d 8, 11-12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). 2589. People ex rel. Spitzer v. Boyajian Law Offices, 851 N.Y.S.2d 72, 2007 WL 3118767, at *9 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (Ta......