a. It shall be unlawful for any person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or to combine or conspire with any person or persons, to monopolize trade or commerce in any relevant market within this State.
b. No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where the effect of such acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition within this State between the corporation whose stock is so acquired and the corporation making the acquisition, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community of this State, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce within this State.
c. No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of two or more corporations engaged in commerce where the effect of such acquisition, or the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be to substantially lessen competition within this State between such corporations, or any of them, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community of this State, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce within this State.
d. This section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for investment and not using the same by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition. Nor shall anything contained in this section prevent a corporation engaged in commerce from causing the formation of subsidiary corporations for the actual carrying on of their immediate lawful business, or the natural and legitimate branches or extensions thereof, or from owning and holding all or a part of the stock of such subsidiary corporations, when the effect of such formation is not to substantially lessen competition.
e. Nothing contained in this section shall be held to affect or impair any right heretofore legally acquired.
Notes of Decisions
In re Christ Hosp., 502 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2013).
“56:9-3— Conspiracy); Second Count (Violation of the New Jersey Anti-Trust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a)— Monopoly); Third Count (Tortious Interference in Contractual Relations); Fourth Count (Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Gain); and Fifth Count (Unfair Competition).”
Michael Halebian N.J., Inc. v. Roppe Rubber Corp., 718 F. Supp. 348 (D.N.J. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Section 2 , and N.J.S.A. 56:9-4. Trade is monopolized when a few persons, acting together, obtain the power to control the prices of a commodity moving in interstate commerce or obtain the power to exclude competition for customers of that product.”
Stephenson v. Bell Atl. Corp., 177 F.R.D. 279 (D.N.J. 1997).
“§ 2 , and the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4. 3 (2d Am. Compl. at 111125-35.”
Urdinaran v. Aarons, 115 F. Supp. 2d 484 (D.N.J. 2000).
“N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a). It further states: This act shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable Federal antitrust statutes and to effectuate, insofar as practicable, a uniformity in the laws of those states which enact it.”
United Jersey Banks v. Parell, 783 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1986).
“5 United Jersey’s complaint also charged that the merger would restrain commerce and tend to create a monopoly in violation of provisions of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.Stat.Ann. § 56:9-4. This statute disclaims regulation of “[t]he activities of any State or national…”
Shire US, Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 538 (D.N.J. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Compl. ¶ 25. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on December 5, 2017.”
Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc. (D. Del. 2024).
“§ 2 , New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a), (id. at ¶¶ 304-17); and • Count 6: Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, (id.”
Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc. (D. Del. 2024).
“§ 2 , New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a), (id. at ¶¶ 304-17); and • Count 6: Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, (id.”
N.J. Stat. § 56:9-4(a): 5 cases
In re Christ Hosp., 502 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2013).
“56:9-3— Conspiracy); Second Count (Violation of the New Jersey Anti-Trust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a)— Monopoly); Third Count (Tortious Interference in Contractual Relations); Fourth Count (Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Gain); and Fifth Count (Unfair Competition).”
Urdinaran v. Aarons, 115 F. Supp. 2d 484 (D.N.J. 2000).
“N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a). It further states: This act shall be construed in harmony with ruling judicial interpretations of comparable Federal antitrust statutes and to effectuate, insofar as practicable, a uniformity in the laws of those states which enact it.”
Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc. (D. Del. 2024).
“§ 2 , New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a), (id. at ¶¶ 304-17); and • Count 6: Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, (id.”
Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc. (D. Del. 2024).
“§ 2 , New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-4(a), (id. at ¶¶ 304-17); and • Count 6: Tortious Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage, (id.”
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.