Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Valeant Pharmaceuticals, the parent of Bausch + Lomb, agreed to sell Paragon Holdings I, Inc. to settle charges that its May 2015 acquisition of Paragon reduced competition for the sale of FDA-approved buttons used for three types of gas permeable, or GP, lenses: orthokeratology lenses, worn to reshape the cornea; large-diameter scleral lenses, which cover the white of the eye and are used after eye surgery, for corneal transplants, and to treat eye disease; and general vision correction lenses. Valeant will sell Paragon in its entirety to a newly created entity, Paragon Companies LLC, headed by the former president of Paragon, Joe Sicari. Under the settlement, Paragon Companies also will acquire the assets of Pelican Products LLC – a contact lens packaging company that Valeant acquired after its purchase of Paragon – that is the only producer of FDA-approved vials used for shipping some GP lenses.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 7/17/2010 alleging that the state dental board in North Carolina is harming competition by blocking non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services in the state. The FTC charged that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners impermissibly ordered non-dentists to stop providing teeth-whitening services, which has made it harder to obtain these services and more expensive for North Carolina consumers. According to the FTC’s administrative complaint, teeth-whitening services are much less expensive when performed by non-dentist than when performed by dentists. In an Initial Decision issued July 14, 2011, the ALJ found that non-dentists compete with dentists to provide teeth whitening services in North Carolina and that the Dental Board's concerted action to exclude non-dentist-provided teeth whitening services from the market had a tendency to harm competition. The ALJ further found that the Dental Board's action had no valid pro competitive justification and constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade and an unfair method of competition. On February 8, 2011, the Commission denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Board's actions were not entitled to state action immunity. The Commission ruled that because the Board is controlled by practicing dentists, its condcut must be actively supervised by the state. OnDecember 7, 2011, the Commission issued an Opinion concluding that the Dental Board violated of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and agreed with the ALJ that the Dental Board's conduct "constituted concerte action, . . . had a tendency to harm competition and did in fact harm competition," and had no legitimate pro-competitive justification. The Commission concluded that the Dental Board's conduct could be deemed illegal under the "inherently suspect" mode of analysis because the challenged conduct had a clear tendency to suppress competition and lacked any countervailing procompetitive virtue. On May 3, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the Board's petition to review the Commission's decision and on 2/25/15, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.