Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC required drug supplier Novartis AG to give up its marketing rights to four topical skin care medications, under a settlement resolving charges that Novartis' acquisition of pharmaceutical firm Fougera Holdings, Inc. would harm competition in the market for these topical drugs. The settlement order requires Novartis to end a marketing agreement that allows it to sell three topically-applied generic drugs and return all rights to a fourth generic drug in development to its manufacturer, Tolmar, Inc. According to the FTC's complaint, Novartis' acquisition of Fougera would violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act by reducing competition in the generic drug markets for three skin care drugs: 1) generic calcipotriene topical solution, 2) generic lidocaine-prilocaine cream, and 3) generic metronidazole topical gel. The complaint also alleges that the acquisition would eliminate potential competition in the market for the sale of diclofenac sodium gel.

The FTC required specialty metals manufacturer Carpenter Technology Corporation to sell assets involved in producing two metal alloys used in the aerospace industry, under a settlement resolving charges that Carpenter's proposed $410 million acquisition of Latrobe Specialty Metals, Inc. would harm competition in the U.S. markets for these alloys.The FTC's complaint alleges that the deal – a merger to monopoly – likely would lead to higher prices for consumers of the two alloys.  The order requires Carpenter to divest assets necessary for manufacturing the two alloys – MP159 and Aerospace MP35N – to another metals manufacturer, Eramet S.A.

The FTC reached a settlement with Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc., the parent company of market research firm IMS Health Inc., according to which IMS has agreed to sell two product lines of rival SDI Health LLC, as a condition of allowing it to proceed with its acquisition of SDI. The proposed settlement order requires the sale of SDI's promotional audit and medical audit businesses to an FTC-approved buyer to resolve the agency's charges that IMS's acquisition of SDI, as originally proposed, is anticompetitive and likely would increase prices for market research products in the health care industry. On1/10/2012, the FTC approved a modified final order settling the charges.

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).  The complaint against McWane was heard before an administrative law judge and later appealed to the Commission; see Docket No. 9351.

The Commission issued a complaint to block Omnicare, Inc.'s hostile acquisition of rival long-term care pharmacy provider PharMerica Corporation, alleging that the combination of the two largest U.S. long-term care pharmacies would harm competition and enable Omnicare to raise the price of drugs for Medicare Part D consumers and others. In its complaint, the FTC charges that a deal combining Omnicare and PharMerica would significantly increase Omnicare's already substantial bargaining leverage by dramatically increasing the number of skilled nursing facilities, known as SNFs, that receive long-term care pharmacy services from the company. Due to its substantial market share, the FTC alleges that the combined firm likely would be a "must have" for Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, which are responsible for providing subsidized prescription drug benefit coverage for most SNF residents and other Medicare beneficiaries. On 2/23/2012, the FTC dismissed the complaint in light of Omnicare's decision to abandon the proposed transaction.

The Commission required laboratory testing companies Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings and Orchid Cellmark Inc. to divest a portion of Orchid's paternity testing business, to resolve the FTC complaint alleging that LabCorp's $85.4 million acquisition of Orchid would have an anticompetitive impact in the market for paternity testing services used by government agencies. Under the proposed settlement order, the portion of Orchid's U.S. paternity testing business that is focused on sales to government agencies, and related assets, will be sold to another testing company, DNA Diagnostics Center (DDC). On 2/1/2012, the FTC approved a final order.

Pool Corporation, the largest distributor of swimming pool products in the United States, agreed to stop anticompetitive tactics that it allegedly used to keep out new competitors in local markets around the nation, as part of a settlement that resolves charges that the conduct maintained PoolCorp's monopoly over distribution of pool products. PoolCorp distributes products used in the construction, renovation, repair, service, and maintenance of residential and commercial swimming pools. The FTC charged that for the past eight years, PoolCorp, based in Covington, Louisiana, threatened not to sell the pool products of any manufacturer who sold products to a new distributor, effectively thwarting entry by new competitors by blocking them from buying pool products directly from manufacturers. The strategy significantly raised the costs incurred by its rivals, thereby lowering sales, increasing prices, and reducing the number of choices available to consumers, the agency alleged.

On 12/16/2011, Brian L. Roberts, the Chief Executive Officer of Comcast Corporation, agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act (HSR Act) in connection with his acquisitions of Comcast stock between 2007 and 2009. The FTC alleged that Roberts failed to file required notices before acquiring Comcast shares. The amount of the fine was limited by a number of factors, including that the violation was inadvertent and technical; that it was apparently due to faulty advice from outside counsel; that Roberts did not gain financially from the violation; and that he reported the violation promptly once it was discovered.