Tag: Competition

A final order permitted the $4 billion merger of MCN, a natural gas utility servicing communities in Michigan, and DTE, a public utility engaged in the generation and sale of electricity in Detroit and southeastern Michigan. The consent order resolves Commission concerns that the merger would lessen competition in the local distribution of electricity and in the local distribution of natural gas in the city of Detroit and in the Michigan counties of Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw and Wayne. MCN is the parent of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company and DTE is the parent holding company of The Detroit Edison Company.

A consent order settled allegations in an administrative complaint that charged that Hoechst agreed to pay Andrx Corporation millions of dollars not to market and distribute a generic version of Hoechst’s branded Cardizem CD, a once-a-day diltiazem drug product used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. The consent order prohibits the companies from entering into agreements designed to restrict the entry of generic competitors in an attempt to monopolize relevant markets .

An association of 86 physicians practicing in the Fairbanks, Alaska area settled charges that the Alaskan Healthcare Network illegally formulated a fee schedule based on its members’ current prices for use in negotiations with third-party payers in an effort to obtain higher prices for medical services.

The FTC sought a preliminary injunction to block H.J. Heinz Company's (Heinz) proposed $185 million acquisition of Milnot Holding Company, owner of Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation (Beech-Nut), citing concerns that the transaction would reduce the number of competitors in the baby food market from three to two, creating a duopoly. Heinz and Beech-Nut are the nation's second- and third-largest producers of prepared baby food.  The district court denied the motion, but the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the federal district court decision and granted the Commission’s request for entry of a preliminary injunction.  Soon after, the parties abandoned the transaction.

The consent order permits the acquisition of Hughes Space and Communications, a subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, but prohibits Boeing from providing systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) to the U.S. Department of Defense for a specific classified program. According to the complaint, Boeing is the sole supplier of SETA programs and Hughes is one of two competing contractors.

The consent order permits the merger of Philip Monis and Nabisco Holdings Corporation while settling charges that the merger of the two food companies would reduce competition in the already highly-concentrated food product markets. Under terms of the order, the parties are required to divest Nabisco's dry- mix gelatin, dry-mix pudding, no-bake dessert, and baking powder assets to The Jet Sea Company and Nabisco's intense mints assets to Hershey Foods Corporation.

A consent order permitted Winn- Dixie's acquisition of 68 supermarkets and other assets from bankrupt Jitney-Jungle Stores of America, Inc. The order prohibits Winn-Dixie, among other things, from acquiring any interest in four Jitney-Jungle supermarkets located in the following areas: Niceville, Gulf Breeze, and Destin, Florida; as well as the Gulfport-Biloxi area of Mississippi.  in addition, for 10 years, Winn-Dixie is prohibited from entering into or enforcing any agreement that restricts the ability of any person to operate a supermarket in the location of a former Winn-Dixie store.

On June 4, 1999 an administrative law judge dismissed charges against VISX, a key developer of laser eye surgery equipment and technology, known as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). According to the 1998 administrative complaint., VISX and Summit Technology, the only two firms legally able to market equipment for PRK, placed their competing patents in a patent pool and shared the proceeds each and every time a Summit or VISX laser was used. The administrative law judge also dismissed charges that VISX acquired a key patent by inequitable conduct and fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruling that complaint counsel failed to present evidence that an act of fraud was committed since information was not willfully withheld from the patent office. A final order settled the price fixing allegations in the 1998 complaint. On February 7, 2001, the Commission dismissed its complaint after the U.S. patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate of U.S. Patent No. 5,108,388.