NRS
598A.060 Prohibited acts.
1. Every activity enumerated in this
subsection constitutes a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of
trade, and it is unlawful to conduct any part of any such activity in this
State:
(a) Price fixing, which consists of raising,
depressing, fixing, pegging or stabilizing the price of any commodity or
service, and which includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Agreements among competitors to
depress prices at which they will buy essential raw material for the end
product.
(2) Agreements to establish prices for
commodities or services.
(3) Agreements to establish uniform
discounts, or to eliminate discounts.
(4) Agreements between manufacturers to
price a premium commodity a specified amount above inferior commodities.
(5) Agreements not to sell below cost.
(6) Agreements to establish uniform
trade-in allowances.
(7) Establishment of uniform cost surveys.
(8) Establishment of minimum markup
percentages.
(9) Establishment of single or multiple
basing point systems for determining the delivered price of commodities.
(10) Agreements not to advertise prices.
(11) Agreements among competitors to fix
uniform list prices as a place to start bargaining.
(12) Bid rigging, including the misuse of
bid depositories, foreclosures of competitive activity for a period of time,
rotation of jobs among competitors, submission of identical bids, and
submission of complementary bids not intended to secure acceptance by the
customer.
(13) Agreements to discontinue a product,
or agreements with anyone engaged in the manufacture of competitive lines to
limit size, styles or quantities of items comprising the lines.
(14) Agreements to restrict volume of
production.
(b) Division of markets, consisting of agreements
between competitors to divide territories and to refrain from soliciting or
selling in certain areas.
(c) Allocation of customers, consisting of
agreements not to sell to specified customers of a competitor.
(d) Tying arrangements, consisting of contracts
in which the seller or lessor conditions the sale or lease of commodities or
services on the purchase or leasing of another commodity or service.
(e) Monopolization of trade or commerce in this
State, including, without limitation, attempting to monopolize or otherwise
combining or conspiring to monopolize trade or commerce in this State.
(f) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2,
consolidation, conversion, merger, acquisition of shares of stock or other
equity interest, directly or indirectly, of another person engaged in commerce
in this State or the acquisition of any assets of another person engaged in
commerce in this State that may:
(1) Result in the monopolization of trade
or commerce in this State or would further any attempt to monopolize trade or
commerce in this State; or
(2) Substantially lessen competition or be
in restraint of trade.
2. The provisions of paragraph (f) of
subsection 1 do not:
(a) Apply to a person who, solely for an
investment purpose, purchases stock or other equity interest or assets of
another person if the purchaser does not use his or her acquisition to bring
about or attempt to bring about the substantial lessening of competition in
this State.
(b) Prevent a person who is engaged in commerce
in this State from forming a subsidiary corporation or other business
organization and owning and holding all or part of the stock or equity interest
of that corporation or organization.
(Added to NRS by 1975,
945; A 1981,
1238; 2001,
483)
Notes of Decisions
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Nevada Plaintiff UFCW claims GSK violated Nevada’s antitrust statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060. SAC ¶ 188. GSK argues this Nevada antitrust claim must be dismissed because the statute requires that the allegedly anticompetitive conduct have taken place, in part, within Nevada.”
Nanopierce Tech., Inc. v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 168 P.3d 73 (Nev. 2007).
· cites it 4× “[48] Appellants' non-misrepresentation claims Appellants' remaining, non-misrepresentation claims include unfair trade practices in violation of NRS 598A.060, market manipulation in violation of NRS 90.”
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 336 F. Supp. 3d 395 (D.N.J. 2018).
“As such, since EPPs' claims are predicated on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, which are considered prohibited acts under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a), the Court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
In Re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Lit., 496 F. Supp. 2d 404 (D. Del. 2007).
“” Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598A.060. In NMV, the court also examined this statute and concluded that it was reasonable to construe the plaintiffs’ complaint as alleging a conspiracy among car manufacturers and Nevada dealers which “contemplated vehicle sales in Nevada at higher prices…”
In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., 260 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
“Nev.Rev.Stat. § 598A.060. The defendants challenge the plaintiffs’ Nevada antitrust claim on the ground that Nevada law requires some allegation of in-state conduct on the part of the defendants.”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 363 (D.N.J. 2018).
“As such, since EPPs' claims are predicated on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, which are considered prohibited acts under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a), the Court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., 29 F. Supp. 3d 982 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
“The allegations meet the pleading requirements relative to Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 598A.060(1), which prohibits conduct that is part of a conspiracy in restraint of trade in Nevada.”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 337 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D.N.J. 2018).
“As such, since EPPs' claims are predicated on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, which are considered prohibited acts under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a), the Court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(1) — 6 cases
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
“Nevada Plaintiff UFCW claims GSK violated Nevada’s antitrust statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060. SAC ¶ 188. GSK argues this Nevada antitrust claim must be dismissed because the statute requires that the allegedly anticompetitive conduct have taken place, in part, within Nevada.”
In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., 29 F. Supp. 3d 982 (E.D. Mich. 2014).
“The allegations meet the pleading requirements relative to Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 598A.060(1), which prohibits conduct that is part of a conspiracy in restraint of trade in Nevada.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(1)(a)(12) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(1)(e) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(1)(f) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a) — 3 cases
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 336 F. Supp. 3d 395 (D.N.J. 2018).
“As such, since EPPs' claims are predicated on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, which are considered prohibited acts under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a), the Court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 363 (D.N.J. 2018).
“As such, since EPPs' claims are predicated on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, which are considered prohibited acts under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a), the Court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., 337 F. Supp. 3d 435 (D.N.J. 2018).
“As such, since EPPs' claims are predicated on allegations of anticompetitive conduct, which are considered prohibited acts under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(a), the Court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(e) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060(l)(e) — 3 cases
Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC, 737 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D. Pa. 2010).
“Nevada Plaintiff UFCW claims GSK violated Nevada’s antitrust statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598A.060. SAC ¶ 188. GSK argues this Nevada antitrust claim must be dismissed because the statute requires that the allegedly anticompetitive conduct have taken place, in part, within Nevada.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.