Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
Staples/Office Depot, In the Matter of
The FTC issued an administrative complaint and authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction pending the results of the administrative proceeding, charging that Staples, Inc.’s proposed $6.3 billion acquisition of Office Depot, Inc. would significantly reduce competition nationwide in the market for “consumable” office supplies sold to large business customers for their own use. The complaint alleges that, in competing for contracts, both Staples and Office Depot can provide the low prices, nationwide distribution and combination of services and features that many large business customers require. The complaint further alleges that, by eliminating the competition between Staples and Office Depot, the transaction would lead to higher prices and reduced quality, and that entry or expansion into the market – by other office supplies vendors, manufacturers, wholesalers, or online retailers – would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to counteract the anticompetitive effects of the merger. On May 19, 2016, Staples and Office Depot abandoned their proposed merger after the district court granted the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction. FTC dismissed the case from administrative trial process.
Staples/Office Depot
The FTC issued an administrative complaint and authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction pending the results of the administrative proceeding, charging that Staples, Inc.’s proposed $6.3 billion acquisition of Office Depot, Inc. would significantly reduce competition nationwide in the market for “consumable” office supplies sold to large business customers for their own use. The complaint alleges that, in competing for contracts, both Staples and Office Depot can provide the low prices, nationwide distribution and combination of services and features that many large business customers require. The complaint further alleges that, by eliminating the competition between Staples and Office Depot, the transaction would lead to higher prices and reduced quality, and that entry or expansion into the market – by other office supplies vendors, manufacturers, wholesalers, or online retailers – would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to counteract the anticompetitive effects of the merger. On May 19, 2016, Staples and Office Depot abandoned their proposed merger after the district court granted the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction. FTC dismissed the case from administrative trial process.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, In the Matter of
Drug manufacturer Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC agreed to sell the rights and assets for two generic drugs, and relinquish its U.S. marketing rights to a third generic drug, in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $2 billion acquisition of Roxane would likely be anticompetitive. The merger would have combined two of five firms marketing prednisone tablets and two of four firms marketing lithium carbonate capsules. In the market for flecainide tablets, Roxane is currently one of only two firms with significant market share. Absent the merger, Hikma was expected to market flecainide tablets in the U.S. following FDA approval, which its partner, Unimark, is currently seeking. The order preserves competition by requiring the companies to divest to Pennsylvania-based Renaissance Pharma, Inc., three strengths of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant prednisone tablets and all strengths of lithium carbonate capsules, used to treat bipolar disorder. The order also requires Hikma to relinquish to its drug development partner, India-based Unimark Remedies Ltd., its equity interest as well as the rights to market flecainide acetate tablets in the United States, a drug used to prevent and treat abnormally fast heart rhythms.
Lupin Ltd., et al., In the Matter of
Generic drug manufacturers Lupin Ltd. and Gavis Pharmaceuticals LLC agreed to sell the rights and assets for two generic drugs, in order to settle FTC charges that Lupin’s proposed $850 million acquisition of Gavis would likely be anticompetitive.The merger would have combined two of only four companies that currently market generic doxycycline monohydrate capsules in two dosage strengths, used to treat bacterial infections, likely resulting in higher prices. The merger also would have eliminated one of only a few companies likely to enter the market for generic mesalamine extended release capsules, used to treat ulcerative colitis, in the near future, thereby delaying beneficial competition and the prospect of price decreases. Under the terms of the order, Lupin is required to transfer to G&W Laboratories all of Gavis’s rights and assets related to generic doxycycline monohydrate capsules no later than ten days after the acquisition is consummated. The order also requires that Gavis divest its rights and assets related to generic mesalamine capsules to G&W before the acquisition takes place.
McWane, Inc., and Star Pipe Products, Ltd., In the Matter of
The FTC filed separate complaints against the three largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings, which are used in municipal water systems around the United States. The FTC charged that the three companies, McWane, Inc., Star Pipe Products, Ltd., and Sigma Corporation, illegally conspired to set and maintain prices for pipe fittings, and that McWane illegally maintained its monopoly power in the market for U.S.-made pipe fittings by implementing an exclusive dealing policy. Sigma settled the FTC's charges prior to litigation (final order dated Feb. 27, 2012); Star settled soon after (final order dated May 8, 2012). On 5/9/2013, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed charges that McWane illegally conspired with its competitors to raise and stabilize DIPF prices but found that McWane violated the antitrust laws when it excluded competitors from the market for U.S. made DIPF (domestic DIPF). On 5/13/2013, both parties filed notices of appeal of the Initial Decision. On February 6, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that McWane unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the domestic fittings market through its "Full Support Program", which foreclosed potential entrants from accessing distributors. The Commission's order bars McWane from requiring exclusivity from its customers. On April 17, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Commission's order.
Pfizer Inc., a corporation, and Wyeth, a corporation, In the Matter of
The Commission challenged Pfizer Inc.’s proposed $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth and required significant divestitures to preserve competition in multiple U.S. markets for animal pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The proposed consent order remedies the anticompetitive effects the Commission believes are likely to result from the transaction in numerous markets for animal vaccines and animal pharmaceutical products. After a thorough investigation, the Commission concluded that the transaction does not raise anticompetitive concerns in any human health product markets.
Bedford Laboratories/Hikma Pharmaceuticals, In the Matter of
Generic drug marketer Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC agreed to divest its rights and interests in five generic injectable pharmaceuticals to settle charges that its $5 million acquisition of the rights to various drug products and related assets from Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, without a remedy, Hikma’s purchase of certain generic injectables would likely harm future competition in the U.S. markets for (1) Acyclovir sodium injection: an antiviral drug used to treat chicken pox, herpes, and other related infections, (2) Diltiazem hydrochloride injection: a calcium channel blocker and antihypertensive used to treat hypertension, angina, and arrhythmias, (3) Famotidine injection: a treatment for ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease, (4) Prochlorperazine edisylate injection: an antipsychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia and nausea, and (5) Valproate sodium injection: a treatment for epilepsy, seizures, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and migraine headaches. Hikma is required to divest the five generic injectable drug assets to Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California-based specialty pharmaceutical company that sells generic injectable and inhalation products.
Oracle Corporation, In the Matter of
Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC, In the Matter of
To settle charges that its acquisition of DSI Renal would substantially lessen competition for outpatient dialysis services in Laredo, Texas, U.S. Renal agreed to divest three clinics to Satellite Healthcare, Inc.
Sitesearch Corporation, Doing Business As LeapLab
Mylan N. V., In the Matter of (Perrigo Company), In the Matter of
Mylan N.V. agreed to sell the rights and assets related to seven generic drugs in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed acquisition of Perrigo Company plc would be substantially reduce competition in the markets for those drugs if the merger proceeded as originally proposed.
ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P., In the Matter of
ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, L.P., agreed to divest its ownership interest in four light petroleum product terminals in Pennsylvania, to settle charges that ArcLight’s acquisition of Gulf Oil Limited Partnership from its parent company, Cumberland Farms, Inc., would likely be anticompetitive in three Pennsylvania terminal markets: Altoona, where ArcLight would own the only terminal handling gasoline and one of two terminals handling distillates; Scranton, where ArcLight would own one of two terminals handling gasoline and distillates; and Harrisburg, where ArcLight would own one of two terminals handling gasoline and one of three terminals handling distillates.
NXP Semiconductors N.V., In the Matter of
NXP Semiconductors N.V. agreed to sell its RF power amplifier assets in order to settle charges that its proposed $11.8 billion acquisition of Freescale Semiconductor Ltd. would substantially lessen competition in the worldwide market for RF power amplifiers, likely resulting in higher prices and reduced innovation. The proposed consent order preserves competition by requiring NXP to divest all its assets that are used primarily for manufacturing, research, and development of RF power amplifiers to the Chinese private equity firm Jianguang Asset Management Co. Ltd. These assets include a manufacturing facility in the Philippines, a building in the Netherlands to house management and some testing labs, as well as all patents and technologies used exclusively or predominantly for the RF power amplifier business, and a royalty-free license to use all other NXP patents and technologies required by that business. The divestiture also includes all of NXP’s RF power amplifier employees and managers.
Third Point, LLC
Three affiliated hedge fund companies and their management company, Third Point LLC, have agreed to settle FTC charges that they violated premerger reporting laws in connection with their 2011 acquisitions of stock in Yahoo! Inc. The complaint alleges that Third Point Partners
Qualified L.P., Third Point Ultra, LTD, and Third Point Offshore Fund, LTD failed to observe the filing and waiting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before purchasing shares in Yahoo. According to the complaint, the three defendant funds claimed that they were exempt from reporting to the U.S. antitrust authorities because the purchases were made solely for investment purposes. At the time of the stock purchases, however, defendant Third Point LLC, which made investment decisions on behalf of the funds, was taking actions inconsistent with an investment-only intent. Under the terms of the proposed stipulated five-year federal court order, the defendants are prohibited from relying on the investment-only exemption if they have contacted third parties to gauge their interest in joining the board of the target company, communicated with the target company about proposed candidates for its board, or engaged in other specified conduct in the four months prior to acquiring voting securities above the HSR Act threshold. In this case, the agencies determined not to seek civil penalties based on several factors, including that the violation was inadvertent and short-lived, and this was the defendants’ first violation of the HSR Act.