Skip to main content

Displaying 81 - 100 of 132

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) agreed to pay $2.1 million – the largest fine allowed by law – for failing to inform the FTC of agreements reached with Apotex, Inc., regarding potential generic competition to its blockbuster drug Plavix. BMS’s conduct violated a 2003 FTC Order and the Medicare Modernization Act, which requires that certain drug company agreements be accurately reported to both the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The complaint alleges that BMS failed to disclose that, as part of a patent settlement in which Apotex agreed not to launch its generic version of Plavix for several years, BMS also orally stated, among other things, that it would not compete with Apotex during the first 180 days after Apotex did market its new generic drug.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0610235
Docket Number
C-4076

CCC Holdings/Mitchell International

In November 2008, the Commission authorized staff to file a complaint in Federal District Court, charging that the acquisition of CCC Information Services by Mitchell International, a transaction valued at $1.4 billion, would be anticompetitive in the market for “estimatics”, a database system used by auto insurers and repair shops to generate repair estimates for consumers. According to the complaint, the transaction would also harm competition in the market for total loss valuation (TLV) systems, used to inform consumers when their vehicle has been totaled. The transaction would create a new entity with well over half of the market share for these systems, allowing for unilateral price increases, and facilitating coordination among the remaining smaller competitors in the market. The Commission concurrently issued an administrative complaint. On March 9, 2009, the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order preventing the parties from consummating the transaction pending a full administrative trial on the merits. On March 13, 2009, since the respondents announced that they decided not to proceed with the proposed merger the Commssion dismissed the Administrative Complaint.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
081 0155

CRH plc, Oldcastle, Inc., Oldcastle Architectural, Inc., Robert Schlegel, and Pavestone Company, L.P., In the Matter of

The Commission issued an administrative complaint to challenge Oldcastle Architectural’s (a subsidiary of CRH) proposed $540 million acquisition of Pavestone Companies as anticompetitive in the US market for drycast concrete hardscape products sold to retailers such as The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart Stores. According to the complaint, the acquisition would reduce competition by combining the only two companies capable of the national manufacture and sale of these heavy products, which include concrete pavers, segmented retaining wall blocks, and concrete patio products, due to the difficulty in distribution of such products, and the fact that both Oldcastle and Pavestone already possess large distribution networks. The acquisition as proposed would result in Oldcastle gaining a 90% market share for the manufacture and sale of these drycast products to home centers in the United States. The Commission also authorized staff to file a complaint in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent consummation of the proposed transaction, but the respondents decided not to proceed with the proposed merger and the Commssion dismissed the administrative complaint.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
081 0148
Docket Number
9335

Whole Foods Market, Inc., and Wild Oats Markets, Inc.

The Commission sought a federal court temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and issued an administrative complaint, against Whole Food Market, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. According to the complaint, the approximately $670 million deal raised competition problems in 21 local markets where Whole Foods and Wild Oats both operated stores and were each other’s closest competitors among premium national and organic supermarkets. The district court granted the TRO, but subsequently denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the merger’s likely effect would not be substantially to reduce competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Commission appealed the district court’s ruling on grounds that the lower court failed to apply the proper legal standard that governs preliminary injunction applications by the Commission in Section 7 cases. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings to determine if the proposed $670 million deal raised competition problems in numerous local markets where Whole Foods and Wild Oats both operated premium natural and organic supermarkets. In a settlement on March 6, 2009, Whole Foods agreed to sell the name brand of Wild Oats, along with 32 of the company’s stores.

There is a related administrative proceeding.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0710114

Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd.; Warner Chilcott Corporation; Warner Chilcott (US) Inc.; Galen (Chemicals) Ltd.; and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Commission settled with Barr Laboratories concluding its federal court action challenging an agreement between Warner Chilcott and Barr in which, the Commission alleged, Barr agreed not to sell a lower-priced generic substitute of Warner Chilcott’s branded Ovcon 35, an oral contraceptive drug, for several years for $20 million. On November 5, 2005 a complaint was filed in District Court for the District Columbia seeking to put an end to an agreement between drug manufacturers Galen Chemicals Ltd. (now known as Warner Chilcott) and Barr Laboratories that denies consumers the choice of a lower priced generic version of Warner Chilcott’s Ovcon® oral contraceptive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Barr planned to launch a generic version of Ovcon as soon it received regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Warner Chilcott expected to lose half its Ovcon sales within the first year if Ovcon faced competition from a generic equivalent. Faced with this prospect, instead of competing with Barr, Warner Chilcott entered into an agreement 24 with Barr, preventing entry of Barr’s generic Ovcon into the United States for five years. In exchange for Barr’s promise not to compete, Warner Chilcott paid Barr $20 million. In September 2006, under the threat of a preliminary injunction sought by the Commission, Warner Chilcott waived the exclusionary provision in its agreement, and the next day Barr announced its intention to start selling generic Ovcon in the United States. Under the terms of the October 2006 order settling the Commission’s charges, Warner Chilcott agreed to certain terms to protect generic entry into the market.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410034

Perrigo Company and Alpharma Inc., F.T.C.

The Commission authorized staff to file a complaint in federal district court charging that Alpharma, Inc. and Perrigo Company drove up the prices for over-the-counter store-brand children’s liquid ibuprofen through an agreement eliminating competition between the two firms and allowing Perrigo to raise its prices creating higher profits to then be shared between the firms. According to the complaint, while both Alpharma and Perrigo filed for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to sell a generic version of children’s liquid Motrin, Alpharma was eligible to sell its product at least six months before approval would be granted to Perrigo. The two companies entered into an agreement not to compete whereby Perrigo would sell the children’s liquid ibuprofen for seven years and Alpharma, while would not marketing a competing product, would receive an up-front payment and a royalty on Perrigo’s sales of the product. To settle the charges, Alpharma and Perrigo paid a total of $6.25 million in illegal profits and agreed not to enter into agreements not to compete when one party to the agreement is a first filer of an abbreviated new drug application.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210197

Nestle Holdings, Inc.; Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Holdings, Inc.; and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.

The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the merger of Nestlé and Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. on grounds that the merger would reduce competition in the highly concentrated market for super-premium ice cream. Nestlé markets super-premium ice cream under the Häagen Dazs brand; Dreyer’s super-premium brands include Dreamery, Godiva and Starbucks. Before the complaint was filed in a federal district court, the parties agreed to enter into a consent agreement to settle the charges. The final order requires the divestiture of super-premium ice cream brands Dreamery and Godiva, the Whole Fruit sorbet brand, and Nestlé’s distribution assets to CoolBrands International, Inc.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210174
Docket Number
C-4082

Arch Coal, Inc., New Vulcan Coal Holdings, LLC, and Triton Coal Company, LLC, In the Matter of

The Commission authorized staff to file a complaint to block Arch Coal, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Triton Coal Company, L.L.C. from New Vulcan Holdings, L.L.C. on grounds that the acquisition would increase concentration and tend to create a monopoly in the market for coal mined from the Southern Powder River Basin and in the production of 8800 British Thermal Unit coal. On April 1, 2004, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the court denied the FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 13, 2005 the Commission announced that it was closing its investigation, saying that it will not continue with administrative litigation challenging the deal.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
031 0191
Docket Number
9316

General Electric Company, In the Matter of

General Electric was permitted to acquire InVision Technologies, Inc. with conditions that it divest InVision's YXLON x-ray nondestructive testing and inspection equipment to a Commission approved acquirer. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, the two firms are direct competitors in a highly concentrated market. The consent order protects competition in the United States market for specialized x-ray testing and inspection including standard x-ray cabinets; x-ray systems equipped with automated defect recognition software; and high-energy x-ray generators.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410106
Docket Number
C-4119

GenCorp Inc., In the Matter of

A consent order allowed GenCorp Inc. to acquire Atlantic Research Corporation while requiring the divestiture of Atlantic’s in-space liquid propulsion business within six months of consummating the transaction. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, the transaction as originally planned would have lessened competition in the United States in four different types of in-space propulsion engines: monopropellant thrusters; bipropellant apogee thrusters; dual mode apogee thrusters; and biopropellant attitude control thrusters.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0310152
Docket Number
C-4099

General Electric Company, In the Matter of

A final consent order settled antitrust concerns stemming from General Electric Company’s proposed acquisition of Agfa-Gevaert N.V.’s nondestructive testing business. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, the transaction as proposed would have eliminated competition in the United States markets for portable flaw detectors, corrosion thickness gages, and precision thickness gages - equipment used to inspect the tolerance of materials without damaging them or impairing their future usefulness. The consent order requires General Electric to divest its worldwide Panametrics Ultrasonic NDT business to R/D Tech, Inc. within 20 days after the transaction is completed.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0310097
Docket Number
C-4103