Tag: Competition

Abbott and Geneva Pharmaceuticals settled charges that the two firms entered into an illegal agreement to stop the marketing and development of a competing generic drug. According to the complaint, Abbott, manufacturer of Hytrin – the brand name for terazosin HCL, a prescription drug used to treat hypertension and benign prostatic hyperplasia, entered into an agreement with Geneva Pharmaceuticals whereby Abbott would pay Geneva millions of dollars not to market a generic version of Hytrin. The orders bars Abbott and Geneva, among other things, from entering into agreements in which a generic company agrees with a manufacturer of a branded drug to delay or stop the production of a competing drug.

General surgeons and six competing general surgery practice groups in the Austin, Texas area settled charges that they collectively refused to deal with two health plans, forcing the plans to accept the surgeons’ demands to raise surgical rates.

The Wisconsin Chiropractic Association and its executive director, Russell A. Leonard, settled charges that they conspired to fix the prices for chiropractic goods and services and to boycott third party payers in an attempt to obtain higher reimbursement rates for services and contracts in the La Crosse, Wisconsin area.

McCormick & Company agreed to settle charges that it violated the Robinson-Patman Act when the firm charged some retailers higher net prices for its spice and seasoning products than it charged other retailers. According to the complaint, McCormick, the world’s largest spice company, offered its products to some retailers at substantial discounts using a variety of different discounting schemes, such as slotting allowances, free goods, off-invoice discounts and cash rebates. The order prohibits McCormick from engaging in price discrimination and from selling its products to any purchaser at a net price higher than McCormick charged the purchaser’s competitor.

Rhodia divested certain assets to resolve antitrust concerns stemming from its acquisition of Allbright & Wilson PLC. The consent order permits the acquisition but requires the divestiture of Albright’s interest in its United States phosphoric acid joint venture to its joint venture partner, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan.

A final order ensures competition in the markets for natural gas transportation out of the Gulf of Mexico and into the southeastern United States. The consent order permitted El Paso's $6 billion merger with Sonar Inc. and requires the divestiture of Sea Robin Pipeline Company; Sonat's one-third ownership interest in Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; and the East Tennessee Natural Gas Company.

A consent order settled charges that Shaw's proposed acquisition of Star Markers, Inc. could eliminate supermarket competition and increase prices in the greater Boston metropolitan area. The consent order permits the acquisition and requires the divestiture of three Shaw supermarkets and seven Star markets in eight communities.

Final order settles allegations that Intel's acquisition of Digital Equipment Corporation's assets could endanger the continuing and future development of the Alpha microprocessor, a direct competitor of Intel's Pentium line of computer system components. The order requires Digital to license the Alpha technology to Advanced Micro Devices and to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. or to other Commission-approved companies to manufacture Digital's microprocessor devices.

A consent order permits MacDermid’s acquisition of Polyfibron Technologies, Inc. and requires the divestiture, among other things, of Polyfibron’s liquid photopolymer business to Chemence Inc. According to the complaint, the acquisition would result in a monopoly in the production, distribution and sale of liquid and solid photopolymer in North America. Photopolymers are used to make flexographic printing plates.

The FTC accepted a consent agreement that allowed Reckitt & Colman plc to acquire all of the voting securities of Benckiser N.V. from NRV Vermogenswerwaltung GmbH, while ensuring that competition in two highly concentrated household cleaning product markets is maintained. According to the complaint, the markets for hard surface bathroom cleaners and fine fabric wash products are highly concentrated, and the proposed acquisition was likely to substantially increase the concentration in each market. Under the agreement, Benckiser's Scrub Free® and Delicare® businesses would be divested to Church & Dwight, Inc., which also produces household cleaning products, selling items under the Arm & Hammer® brand name.

Final order requires Kroger and Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. to divest eight supermarkets to settle charges that the acquisition of Fred Meyer would increase concentration and decrease competition in seven cities in Arizona, Wyoming, and Utah. Under terms of the order, two Smith's Food & Drug Centers will be sold to Nash-Finch Company; one "City Market" will be sold to Albertson's Inc.; and five supermarkets (two "City Markets"; two Fry's, and one Smith's) will be sold to Fleming Companies, Inc.