Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The consent order settled charges that Cephalon's proposed acquisition of Cima Labs, Inc. would allow Cephalon to continue its monopoly in the United States market for drugs that eliminate or reduce the spikes of severe pain that chronic cancer patients experience. The consent order required Cephalon to grant Barr Laboratories, Inc. a fully paid, irrevocable license to make and sell a generic version of Cephalon's breakthrough cancer pain drug, Actiq, in the United States.

A consent order prohibits Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc., an acute care hospital in Hickory, North Carolina, and its parent company Tenet Healthcare Corporation from entering into any agreement to negotiate fees on behalf of any physician practicing in four North Carolina counties and from refusing to deal with insurance companies and other payers. Also refer to related administrative complaint issued to Piedmont Health Alliance. This settlement is the first case in which the Commission has named a hospital as a participant in an alleged physician price-fixing conspiracy.

The FTC charged that, as proposed, DSM's purchase of RV&FC would have a significant adverse effect on competition in the worldwide market for phytase. Phytase is an enzyme added to certain animal feed to promote the digestion of nutrients necessary for livestock production.  According to the complaint, absent relief, the transaction would lead to DSM being part of alliances that supply more than 90 percent of the $150 million phytase market worldwide. A consent order permitted DSM N.V. to acquire the Vitamins and Fine Chemicals Division of Roche Holding AG but requires DSM to divest its phytase business to BASF AG.

The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association settled charges that it filed tariffs on behalf of its 400 members containing rules  that called for automatic increases in intrastate rates during the summer months, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. In addition, the organization agreed to void its collectively filed tariffs current in effect in New Hampshire, ensuring that future tarriff provisions would be filed individually.

An association of household goods movers agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated the antitrust laws by engaging in the collective filing of tariffs on behalf of its members who compete in the provision of moving services in the state of Alabama. The conduct is not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order, Alabama Trucking Association, Inc. agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates and to void collectively filed tariffs currently in effect in Alabama.

In an administrative complaint issued on July 8, 2003, the Commission charged that the association composed of competing household goods movers filed collective rates for intrastate moving services in the state of Mississippi. According to the complaint, these activities were not protected under the state action doctrine because they were not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order the Movers Conference agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates.

A consent order settled charges that the household goods movers association filed collectively established rate tariffs for its members in Minnesota, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state. According to the complaint, the MTSA filed collectively set rates on behalf of its 89 members, which had the effect of fixing prices of household goods moves, and restricting price competition to the detriment of consumers.

The Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s Association agreed to stop certain conduct to settle allegations that it filed collectively established tariffs for intrastate moving rates in Iowa - a practice which did not meet the requirements of the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state.

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.

Under the terms of a consent order, The Institute of Store Planners must remove from its Code of Ethics any provision that prohibits its members from providing their services for free and any provision that prohibits competition with other members for work on the basis of price. According to the complaint, these rules unreasonably restrained price and nonprice competition among the members, depriving consumers of the benefits of competition among store planners. Its members provide architectural store design and store and merchandise planning to retail stores.

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.