Opinion ID: 1982295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Absence of Prior Court Orders

Text: Federal law allows the imposition of per diem penalties only where defendant has violated a court or administrative order. See 15 U.S.C.A. § 21( l ) (Clayton Act); 15 U.S.C.A. § 45( l ) (Federal Trade Commission Act). Consequently, defendant argues, and the trial court agreed, that a per diem penalty cannot be imposed under the Act absent violation of a court order. We disagree. The uniform construction provision of the Act mandates that the Act be construed in harmony with the federal cases interpreting  Comparable [f]ederal antitrust statutes. N.J.S.A. 56:9-18 (emphasis supplied). The federal antitrust statutes specifically require a cease and desist order be issued and violated before civil penalties are imposed. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 21( l ) and 45( l ). Unlike the federal statutes, however, the Act does not require such an order to be issued and violated before the imposition of any civil penalty. See N.J.S.A. 56:9-10c. Since the Legislature clearly did not intend per diem penalties to apply only where a court order was violated, it would be a misconstruction of the Act to adopt that requirement.