The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
20072102: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.; Frontenac VIII Limited Partnership
20072099: Primus Capital Fund V Limited Partnership; Healthcare Management Systems, Inc. ESOT
20072096: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP; Dewey Ballantine LLP
20072095: Dewey Ballantine LLP; LeBouf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP
20072089: Darden Restaurants, Inc.; RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
20072083: AIF VI NCL AIV, L.P.; Star Cruises Limited
20072082: NCL Investment Ltd.; Star Cruises Limited
20072067: EMCOR Group, Inc.; First Reserve Fund X, L.P.
20072052: Royal Bank of Canada; Visa Inc.
Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission On Reauthorization: Major Activities, Planned Initiatives, and Legislative Recommendations
20072014: Symyx Technologies, Inc.; Reed Elsevier NV
20072013: Symyx Technologies, Inc.; Reed Elsevier PLC
Colegio de Optometras, Edgar Davila Garcia, O.D., and Carlos Rivera Alonso, O.D., In the Matter of
The Commission charged a group of optometrists in Puerto Rico with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among members of the Colegio de Optometras to refuse, or threaten to refuse, to accept vision and health care contracts except on collectively agreed-upon terms. Two leaders of the group were also charged with facilitating the agreement by urging members not to participate in the vision network. The Commission’s consent order settling these charges bars the group and the two leaders from engaging in such conduct, while allowing them to undertake certain kinds of joint contracting arrangements by which physician participants control costs and improve quality by managing the provision of services. FTC staff worked with the Office of Monopolistic Affairs of Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice on this case.
South Carolina State Board of Dentistry, In the Matter of
The Commission settled a September 15 2003 administrative complaint charging the South Carolina State Board of Dentistry with unlawfully restraining competition by enacting a rule that required a dentist to examine every child before a dental hygienist could provide preventive dental care – such as cleanings – in schools. The Board, which is a state regulatory agency composed primarily of practicing dentists, claimed that its actions were immune from antitrust challenge under the state action doctrine, but that argument was rejected in a 2004 Commission opinion holding that the Board’s conduct was directly contrary to state law. In 2006, the court of appeals dismissed the Board’s interlocutory petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in January 2007. The FTC’s 2007 consent requires the Board to publicly support the current state public health program that allows hygienists to provide preventive dental care to schoolchildren, especially those from low-income families.