Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC filed an administrative complaint challenging OSF Healthcare System’s proposed acquisition of Rockford Health System, charging that the acquisition would substantially reduce competition among hospitals and primary care physicians in Rockford, Illinois, and significantly harm local businesses and patients. The FTC filed a separate complaint in federal district court seeking an order to halt the transaction temporarily to preserve competition for Rockford area residents pending the FTC’s administrative proceeding and any subsequent appeals. On 4/5/2012, the U.S. District Court ruled granting the FTC's request for a preliminary injunction. On 4/13/2012, the FTC dismissed the complaint in light of OSF Healthcare's decision to abandon the proposed transaction.

The Commission challenged Dow Chemical’s $18.8 billion proposed acquisition of Rohm & Haas Company as anticompetitive in the markets for various acrylics and other industrial chemicals used to make coated paper products, paints, and adhesives. According to the Commission’s complaint, the product markets in question include acrylic monomers, used in goods ranging from hygiene products to paints and industrial coatings, hollow sphere particles, used in paper products, and acrylic latex polymers, used in traffic paints. Given the high concentration in each of the product markets, the proposed acquisition would have represented a merger to monopoly. To remedy its anticompetitive concerns, the Commission required Dow to divest assets to Hager Pacific Acquisitions LLC.

An association representing 900 physicians in the Amarillo, Texas, area agreed to a Commission order barring it from jointly negotiating the prices it charges insurance providers. The FTC alleged in a complaint filed with the order that the association, Southwest Health Alliances, Inc., d/b/a BSA Provider Network, has violated federal law since 2000 by fixing the prices its member doctors would charge insurers. The Commission's order requires the association to cease and desist.

The FTC challenged Laboratory Corporation of America’s $57.5 million acquisition of rival clinical laboratory testing company Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc., alleging that the transaction would lead to higher prices and lower quality in the Southern California market for the sale of clinical laboratory testing services to physician groups. The complaint also alleges that LabCorp’s acquisition of Westcliff would leave only two significant laboratories in Southern California competing to provide critical testing services to most physician groups.The FTC also filed an action in federal court to prevent LabCorp from integrating the Westcliff assets while the case is being tried in the administrative court. The federal court denied the FTC motion for an injunction pending appeal. Staff filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal with the 9th Circuit, which denied the Commission's appeal. The Commission dismissed its complaint and closed the investigation.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 5/7/2010 challenging The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation February 2009 acquisition of Quality Education Data (QED) and alleging that the deal hurt consumers by eliminating nearly all competition in the market for kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational marketing databases. The data sold by these companies is used to sell books, education materials, and other products to teachers and other educators nationwide. The combination of the two companies gave Dun & Bradstreet, through its subsidiary Market Data Retrieval (MDR), more than 90 percent of the market for K-12 educational marketing data. Dun & Bradstreet acquired QED from Scholastic, Inc. for about $29 million, which was below the threshold amount that would have required the companies to notify U.S. antitrust authorities before finalizing the deal.

The Commission issued an administrative complaint challenging Carilion Clinic’s 2008 acquisition of two competing outpatient clinics in the Roanoke, Virginia, area. The complaint alleges that Carilion’s acquisition of these outpatient centers eliminated competition for patients in the Roanoke area.  On October 7, 2009 Carillion agreed to sell two independent outpatient medical clinics it acquired last year to settle the charges.

The Commission settled charges that the executive director of a Colorado physicians’ association actively tried to evade the terms of a 2008 FTC order by telling insurers that because she was not named individually in the order, she could simply negotiate on behalf of competing physicians on the “outside” and “not with my [association] hat, but as an individual.” The Commission complaint and consent order settling the FTC’s charges name the executive director individually, and will prevent her from orchestrating or implementing price-fixing agreements among the group’s competing physicians.

The Commission challenged the conduct of Boulder Valley Individual Practice Association for refusing to deal, or threatening to refuse to deal with insurance providers that failed to increase fees paid to group doctors, and also prevented members from contracting with payers, except through Boulder Valley. During the period between 2001 and 2006 Boulder Valley IPA threatened to terminate contracts with payers unless the payers agreed to pay increased fees-for-service set by Boulder Valley, effectively engaging in illegal price fixing, and harming Boulder country area consumers by charging higher prices for the various physician’s services offered. The settlement prohibits Boulder Valley from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving Boulder Valley.

The Commission challenged Danaher’s proposed acquisition of MDS Analytical Technologies, requiring that MDS divest its assets related to its laser microdissection business. The proposed settlement is designed to preserve competition in the North American market for laser microdissection devices – a key tool for scientific research.

The Commission challenged Service Corporation International's (SCI) proposed acquisition of local rival Palm Mortuary, Inc.  At the time of the acquisition, SCI, the nation’s largest cemetery operator, was the third-largest provider of cemetery services in Las Vegas, Nevada, and after the acquisition of Palm, would have controlled 76 percent of hte market for funeral services, which includes burial plots, opening and closing of graves, memorials, burial vaults, mausoleum spaces, and cemetery maintenance. The Commission's order required SCI to sell its cemetery and funeral home in Las Vegas to complete the acquisition of Palm.

Under terms of the order, Aspen agreed to divest Hypotech’s continuous process and batch process assets and Aspen’s operator training software and service business to a Commission-approved buyer to settle charges in the complaint and resolve the administrative proceedings. The Commission issued an administrative complaint on August 6, 2003 that challenged Aspen’s 2002 acquisition of Hyprotech, Ltd. alleging that the acquisition eliminated a significant competitor in the provision of process engineering simulation software for industry. According to the complaint, the acquisition has led to reduced innovation competition in six specific process engineering simulation software markets.

The FTC challenged Hexion LLC's proposed acquisition of Huntsman Corp., and settled its charges with a proposed consent order which requiredthe divestiture of Hexion's specialty epoxy business, and prevented the sharing of sensitive and non-public information which could lead to coordination of prices. Huntsman and Hexion are both producers of high-performance and specialty chemicals used in the aerospace and alternative energy industries. Subsequently, Hexion LLC and Huntsman Corporation petitioned the Commission to reopen and set aside two orders related to their proposed merger because they terminated their planned merger; the Commission granted, in part, the petition but left in place provisions of the order requiring Hexion for three years to seek the Commission’s approval prior to any acquisition of Huntsman, or any merger or other combination with Huntsman.

In September, 2008, the Commission challenged Reed Elsevier’s $4.1 billion proposed acquisition of ChoicePoint, which would have combined the two leading providers of electronic public record services provided to U.S. law enforcement customers. Public records services compile public and non-public records about individuals and businesses, including credit data, criminal, motor vehicle, property, and employment records, all used by law enforcement as an investigative tool in solving a wide variety of crimes. The transaction, as proposed, would have removed the intense rivalry that had lead to lower prices, product innovations, and improved services and support for law enforcement customers by eliminating the competition between Reed Elsevier’s LexisNexis product and ChoicePoint’s AutoTrackXP and CLEAR products. The Commission required divestiture of ChoicePoint’s product lines to Thomson Reuters Legal Inc. The Commission worked with the Attorneys General of eighteen states on this investigation.

The Commission challenged Lubrizol Corporation’s consummated 2007 acquisition of the oxidate assets of The Lockhart Company which had the effect of substantially lessening competition in the already highly concentrated U.S. market for chemical rust inhibitors. These inhibitors are commonly used to prevent rusting during the manufacture of metal products such as automobiles and other heavy equipment. According to the Commission’s complaint the acquisition removed Lubrizol’s last substantial competitor in the relevant market. In addition, the Commission challenged a non-compete agreement included in the terms of the acquisition which prevented Lockhart from competing in the relevant market for 5 years as anticompetitive because it restrained the ability of new firms to enter the market. The Commission issued a consent order remedying its anticompetitive concerns requiring the divestiture of the oxidate assets in question to Additives International and the elimination of the non-compete agreement.

The Commission challenged Getinge AB’s proposed $865 million acquisition of rival Datascope Corporation as anticompetitive in the market for endoscopic vessel harvesting devices (EVHs). EVHs are used during coronary artery bypass graft surgery where a vein is removed from a patients leg or arm to replace a damaged or blocked coronary artery. According to the Commission’s complaint, the acquisition as proposed would give Getinge nearly a 90% market share and the ability to unilaterally increase prices while reducing the likelihood of innovation. The Commission issued a consent order requiring that Datascope divest its EVH assets to Sorin Group USA within 10 days of consummating the transaction.

The Commission challenged the conduct of AllCare IPA, alleging that AllCare restrained competition in fee-for-service contracts by fixing prices and other contract terms with payers, engaging in collective negotiations over the terms and conditions of dealing with payers, and preventing group members from negotiating with payers except on terms approved by All Care. The Commission issued a consent order prohibiting All Care from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving All Care.