Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

A New Mexico physician organization settled charges that it and its members entered into agreements to fix prices and to refuse to deal with third party payers and other health care plans except on collectively agreed-upon terms.

MSC settled charges that its 1999 acquisitions of Universal Analytics, Inc. and Computerized Structural Analysis & Research Corp. eliminated competition between the three firms in the development and application of engineering software. The administrative complaint issued October 2001, alleged that the two acquisitions would eliminate competition for advanced versions of Nastran, an engineering simulation software program used throughout the aerospace and automotive industries. The consent order required MSC to divest at least one clone copy of its current advance Nastran through royalty-free perpetual, non-exclusive licenses to one or two acquirers approved by the Commission.

A final consent order permits Pfizer Inc.'s acquisition of Phamacia Corporation while requiring the divestiture of various products including extended release drugs used in the treatment of an overactive bladder; hormone replacement therapies; erectile dysfunction; canine arthritis; and motion sickness. Novartis AG, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Insight Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Cadbury Schweppes are named in the order as potential buyers of the various pharmaceuticals and products.

The consent order requires FMC to divest its phosphorus pentasulfide business in Lawrence, Kansas to Peak Investments, LLC and Solutia Inc.’s phosphate assets in Augusta, Georgia to Societe Chemique Prayon-Rupel to settle charges that the proposed FMC/Solutia joint venture could substantially lessen competition in the United States market for pure phosphoric acid and phosphorus pentasulfide.

The corporation that represents household goods movers in Indiana settled charges that it filed collective intrastate rate tariffs with the State’s Department of Revenue on behalf of its members. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, these collective filings reduced competition for household goods moving services within the state, and the conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state.