Displaying 4301 - 4320 of 5050
Lewis, Robert, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, individually., In the Matter of
Private attorneys in Clark County, Washington who provide criminal legal services for indigent defendants under a county contract settled charges that they illegally entered into an agreement known as the “Indigent Defense Bar Consortium Contract” to collectively demand higher fees for certain types of cases and refuse to accept specific additional cases unless the Clark County complied with their demands. The county was forced to substantially increase the reimbursement rate for each of the case categories specified in the Consortium Contract. According to the Commission, the conduct of the attorneys was identical to the boycott staged by criminal defense attorneys in Washington, DC which was ruled to be price fixing by the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association. Robert Lewis, James Sowder, Gerald Wear, and Joel R. Yoseph, the four attorneys who led the activities and served as the representatives of the 43 attorneys who signed the Consortium Contract, were named in the complaint and in the consent order.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0310155
Resolving Anticompetitive Concerns, FTC Clears Sanofi-Synthlabos Acquisition of Aventis
Date
Under the terms of a consent agreement announced today, the Federal Trade Commission would allow France’s Sanofi-Synthélabo’s (Sanofi) $64 billion acquisition of Aventis, provided the companies divest...
Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission On Market Forces, Anticompetitive Activity, and Gasoline Prices
Date
By
William Kovacic, Former Chairman
File
Testimony
(681.25 KB)
FTC Testifies on Initiatives to Protect Competitive Markets for Gasoline
Date
In testimony today, the Federal Trade Commission told the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that the price of crude oil, not mergers in the petroleum...
FTC Reinstates Complaint of Unfair Methods of Competition Against Unocal
Date
The Federal Trade Commission today reinstated charges that the Union Oil Company of California violated antitrust laws by defrauding the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in connection with...
Statement of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy J. Muris on the GAO Study on 1990s Oil Mergers and Concentration Released Today
Date
In 30 years as an antitrust enforcer, academic, and consultant on antitrust issues, I have rarely seen a report so fundamentally flawed as the GAO study of several oil mergers that the Federal Trade...
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, In the Matter of
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) settled charges that it engaged in illegal business practices to delay the entry of three low price generic pharmaceuticals that would be in direct competition with three of its branded drugs. The complaint alleged that BMS purposely made wrongful listings in the Orange Book of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration and that it also paid a potential competitor over $70 million to delay the entry of its generic drug. The three drugs involved in the complaint are: Taxol (containing the active ingredient paclitaxel) – used to treat ovarian, breast, and lung cancers; Platinol (containing the active ingredient cisplatin) – used for the treatment of various forms of cancer; and BuSpar (containing the active ingredient buspirone) – used to manage anxiety disorders. To prevent recurrence of Bristol's pattern of alleged improper listings, the consent order eliminates Bristol's ability to obtain a 30-month stay on later-listed patents. By denying Bristol the benefit of the 30-month stay on later-listed patents, the order would reduce Bristol's incentive to engage in improper behavior before the PTO and the FDA to obtain and list a patent for the purpose of obtaining an unwarranted automatic 30-month stay.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0110046
Docket Number
C-4076
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Date
re: Proposed settlement of infringement litigation with Teva Pharmaceuticals involving sharing of the exclusivity period for the drug Paraplatin.
Apr16
Health Care Information and Competition conference
This quasi-academic conference, organized by Stanford health economist Dan Kessler, brought together academics and health policy makers to examine the production of and use of health care market...
Apr15
Ideas into Action: Implementing Reform of the Patent System
-
The FTC, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology co-sponsored a conference to address patent reform and how it might be implemented. The event brought...
FTC Testifies on "Market Forces, Anticompetitive Activity, and Gasoline Prices"
Date
Testifying today on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, General Counsel William...
FTC to Co-Sponsor Conference on Patent System Reform
Date
On April 15 and 16, 2004, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology will co-sponsor a conference to address patent reform and...
RHI AG, in the Matter of
The complaint alleged that RHI violated various provisions of an FTC order issued in 2001. According to the complaint, the 2001 order was issued pursuant to a 1999 consent agreement with RHI that followed the FTC’s investigation of RHI’s acquisition of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc., and resolved concerns that the acquisition would decrease competition in North American markets for refractory bricks used to line steel-making equipment. The order, as drafted in 1999, required RHI to divest to Resco Products, Inc. two refractories plants and other assets in Canada and the United States in a manner set out in contracts between Resco and NARCO, an RHI subsidiary. However, before the order became final, the FTC determined, in 2000, that NARCO failed to divest all of the requisite assets to Resco. The complaint also charged that NARCO manufactured refractory bricks in violation of a patent license that was part of the order, and in violation of specific order language. Finally, the complaint asserted that NARCO modified the settlement agreement with Resco without FTC approval. Under the terms of the final judgment, RHI agreed to pay a civil penalty of at least $650,000 for the violations and to conduct asbestos remediation at a divested plant.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210105
Docket Number
C-4005
FTC Staff: New York Direct Shipment of Wine Bills Would Promote E-commerce and Consumer Welfare
Date
In response to requests from three New York state legislators, the staffs of the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Policy Planning, Northeast Regional Office, and Bureaus of Competition, Consumer...
FTC To Challenge Arch Coal's Proposed Acquisition of Triton Coal Company
Date
The Federal Trade Commission has voted to seek an injunction to block Arch Coal Inc.'s (Arch) proposed $364 million acquisition of Triton Coal Company, LLC's (Triton) assets, including the North...
Displaying 4301 - 4320 of 5050