FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (price-Fixing as Per Se Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act)
85. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 85 as if set forth fully herein.
6. For least the last several years, Defendants have been engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix the commissions and charges to professional models and persons who employ I professional models. This conspiracy began in or around the mid-1970's, when Defendants Ford and Wilhelmina agreed to fix the commissions that they charged Plaintiffs to an amount above the statutory limit as provided by GBL 185. Defendants' agreement to fix prices was later expanded to include Elite and each of the other Defendants, at times and on terms that are known only to Defendants.
87. Pursuant to Defendants' unlawful price fixing agreement, Defendants colluded to raise the commissions they charged to their models from 10% to 15%, and then to 20%, which Defendants have now agreed to each represent to current and prospective models as the "standard rate" for model contracts in New York.
88. Defendants have also agreed to implement, and implemented, other price - related restraints that have artificially inflated the costs Plaintiffs must pay to retain an agent. For example, Defendants have worked together and through the IMMA to draft progressively more onerous "standard" contracts that:
a, Require the models to reimburse the agencies for any out of pocket costs incurred by the agencies in advertising the models' portfolios;
b. Require the models to pay the "mother" agency for any modeling job the models obtain, even if the models procured the employment without an agent or with the help of another agency;
c. Require the models to pay usurious interest rates on advanced salaries.
89. Defendants, Plaintiffs and members of the Class work in interstate commerce in the United States and elsewhere.
90. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiffs and other members of the Class have been damaged and continue to be damaged in their business or property in that they have to pay non-competitive prices for Defendants' services in the form of the standard 20% commissions, and revenue that they would otherwise be earn if Defendants did not also charge and collect their additional 20% commission to Plaintiffs' employers.
91. Defendants' price fixing agreement is a per se violation of Section I of the Sherman Act. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 15 (a), Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover treble their actual damages caused as a result of Defendants' unlawful price-fixing and such other and further relief as permitted by law, their attorneys fees and the costs of this action.
Dave
Orlando, Florida
0 comments