Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

VNU N.V. settled antitrust concerns that its proposed acquisition of Nielsen Media Research, Inc. would restrict competition in the market for advertising expenditure measurement services in the United States. The order requires VNU to divest its Competitive Media Reporting division, the nation's largest supplier in the specialized market.

The Commission authorized a preliminary injunction action in federal court alleging that Kroger's proposed acquisition of 74 Winn-Dixie supermarkets in would substantially lessen competition in several markets near and in Fort Worth, Texas.  The parties soonafter abandoned their merger plans.

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.

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.

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.

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.