Tag: Merger

On February 19, 2015, the FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that the proposed merger of Sysco and US Foods would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition nationwide and in 32 local markets for broadline foodservice distribution services. The FTC alleged that if the merger goes forward as proposed, foodservice customers, including restaurants, hospitals, hotels, and schools, would likely face higher prices and lower levels of service than would be the case but for the merger. The FTC also authorized staff to seek in federal court a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from consummating the merger, and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding. The PI action was filed on February 20, 2015. According to the FTC complaint, a combined Sysco/US Foods would account for 75% of the national market for broadline distribution services. In addition, the parties would also hold high shares in a number of local markets. The Commission also charged that the proposed sale of 11 US Foods distribution centers to Performance Food Group would neither enable PFG to replace US Foods as a competitor nor counteract the significant competitive harm caused by the merger. The following state attorneys general have joined the FTC’s complaint for a preliminary injunction to be filed in federal district court: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. Following a June 23, 2015 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting the Federal Trade Commission request for a preliminary injunction, Sysco and US Foods abandoned their proposed merger, and the Commission dismissed its administrative complaint.

On 2/19/15, the FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that the proposed merger of Sysco and US Foods would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition nationwide and in 32 local markets for broadline foodservice distribution services. The FTC alleged that if the merger goes forward as proposed, foodservice customers, including restaurants, hospitals, hotels, and schools, would likely face higher prices and lower levels of service than would be the case but for the merger. The FTC also authorized staff to seek in federal court a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from consummating the merger, and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding. The PI action was filed on 2/20/15. According to the FTC complaint, a combined Sysco/US Foods would account for 75% of the national market for broadline distribution services. In addition, the parties would also hold high shares in a number of local markets. The Commission also charged that the proposed sale of 11 US Foods distribution centers to Performance Food Group would neither enable PFG to replace US Foods as a competitor nor counteract the significant competitive harm caused by the merger. The following state attorneys general have joined the FTC’s complaint for a preliminary injunction to be filed in federal district court: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. Following a June 23, 2015 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting the Federal Trade Commission request for a preliminary injunction, Sysco and US Foods abandoned their proposed merger, and the Commission dismissed its administrative complaint.

Pharmaceutical companies Impax Laboratories Inc. and CorePharma, LLC agreed to divest all of CorePharma’s rights and assets to generic pilocarpine tablets and generic ursodiol tablets, in order to settle FTC charges that Impax’s proposed $700 million acquisition of CorePharma would likely be anticompetitive. Without the divestitures required by the proposed order, the FTC alleges that the acquisition would reduce the number of future suppliers in the markets for generic pilocarpine tablets, which are used to treat dry mouth, and generic ursodiol tablets, which are used to treat biliary cirrhosis, a chronic disease of the liver, as well as gall bladder diseases. CorePharma’s entry as an independent competitor would likely have resulted in significantly lower prices for each of these drugs. According to the FTC’s complaint, there are currently only two suppliers in the market for generic pilocarpine tablets, and Impax and CorePharma are the only likely new entrants into this market in the near future. In the market for generic ursodiol tablets, there are currently four suppliers, including Impax. This market
has recently experienced supply shortages, which can diminish competition among suppliers. CorePharma is one of a limited number of firms likely to enter the generic ursodiol market in the near future.

Global pharmaceutical company Novartis AG agreed to divest Habitrol, its nicotine replacement therapy patch, to settle FTC charges that its consumer health care products joint venture with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) would likely be anticompetitive. Under the terms of the proposed joint venture agreement, GSK will control the joint venture and contribute, among other products, its nicotine patch business. Novartis will have a 36.5 percent interest in the joint venture, and without the divestitures required by the proposed order, would continue to own the Habitrol business. According to the complaint, without the divestiture contained in the proposed settlement, Novartis’s ownership of both Habitrol and a substantial interest in the joint venture that sells GSK’s nicotine patches would substantially reduce competition and lead to higher prices for Habitrol and Novartis’s private-label patches.  (C-4498)

Separately, Novartis AG also agreed to divest all assets related to its BRAF and MEK inhibitor drugs, products in development, to Boulder, Colorado-based Array BioPharma to settle FTC charges that Novartis’s $16 billion acquisition of GlaxoSmithKline’s portfolio of cancer-treatment drugs would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, the Switzerland-based Novartis and the London-based GSK are two of a small number of companies with either a BRAF or MEK inhibitor currently on the market or in development, and two of only three companies marketing or developing a BRAF/MEK combination product to treat melanoma. If the acquisition goes forward as proposed, Novartis would likely delay or terminate development of both its BRAF and MEK inhibitors, as well as the combination product. Under the terms of the consent agreement, Novartis is required to provide transitional services to Array BioPharma to ensure that development of the BRAF and MEK inhibitors continues uninterrupted and that competition in BRAF and MEK inhibitor markets is not reduced. (C-4510)