Legal Library: Search

Pharmaceutical companies Actavis plc and Forest Laboratories, Inc. agreed to sell or relinquish their rights to four generic pharmaceuticals that treat hypertension, angina, cirrhosis, and prevent seizures to settle FTC charges that Actavis’s acquisition of Forest likely would be anticompetitive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Actavis’s acquisition of Forest, as originally proposed, would violate federal antitrust laws by reducing competition in the markets for three current generic products. In addition, the FTC’s complaint also alleges that the proposed transaction would delay the introduction of another generic drug. Under the proposed FTC settlement order, the companies have agreed to relinquish their rights to market generic diltiazem hydrochloride (AB4) to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.; sell generic ursodiol and generic lamotrigine ODT to Impax Laboratories, Inc.; and sell generic propranolol hydrochloride to Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Actavis and Forest must ensure the viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the drugs that are
being divested until they are sold.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. agreed to settle charges that its proposed $2.9 billion acquisition of Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) would likely substantially lessen competition by combining the firms’ title plant assets in several local markets in Oregon. To preserve competition, the proposed settlement requires Fidelity to sell a copy of LPS’s title plants in six Oregon counties and an ownership interest equivalent to LPS’s share of a jointly owned title plant in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area.

The FTC alleged that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.

The FTC alleges that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.