Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

DaVita, Inc. agreed to divest its ownership interest in seven dialysis clinics – five in suburban and urban areas of New Jersey and two on the outskirts of Dallas, Texas – to proceed with its $358 million acquisition of competitor Renal Ventures Management, LLC. DaVita is the second-largest  provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United States and Renal Ventures is the seventh-largest. DaVita will divest the seven clinics to PDA-GMF Holdco, LLC, a joint venture between Physicians Dialysis and GMF Capital LLC. Physicians Dialysis has been in business since 1990 and currently operates several outpatient dialysis clinics. According to the FTC's complaint, the acquisition would lead to significant anticompetitive effects in the New Jersey markets of Brick, Clifton, Somerville, Succasunna, and Trenton, and in the Dallas-area markets of Denton and Frisco. Currently, DaVita and Renal Ventures clinics compete directly with each other in these markets, and the merger would represent either a merger to monopoly or a reduction of competitors from three to two. Without that competition, the likely result would be reduced quality and higher prices for dialysis patients. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, DaVita, Inc. must obtain agreements from the medical director of each divested clinic to continue providing physician services after it transfers ownership to PDA-GMF Holdco; obtain consent from the relevant landlords to transfer leases for the facilities to the buyer; and provide the buyer an opportunity to interview and hire employees from the divested clinics. Also under the proposed settlement, DaVita is barred from contracting with the medical directors of the seven clinics for three years, and it must provide transition services for up to 24 months.

The FTC, together with the Idaho Attorney General, filed a complaint in federal district court seeking to block St. Luke’s Health System, Ltd.’s acquisition of Idaho's largest independent, multi-specialty physician practice group, Saltzer Medical Group P.A. According to the joint complaint, the combination of St. Luke’s and Saltzer would give it the market power to demand higher rates for health care services provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) in Nampa, Idaho and surrounding areas, ultimately leading to higher costs for health care consumers.   The federal district court held that the acquisition violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and the Idaho Competition Act, and ordered St. Luke’s to fully divest itself of Saltzer’s physicians and assets.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling.

The FTC's order requires CentraCare Health, a healthcare provider in St. Cloud, Minnesota, to release some physicians from “non-compete” contract clauses, allowing them to join competing practices, under a settlement mitigating likely anticompetitive effects from CentraCare’s proposed merger with St. Cloud Medical Group (“SCMG”). CentraCare Health, a non-profit health system in central Minnesota, also includes a multi-specialty physician practice group. SCMG is a physician-owned, multi-specialty practice group that operates four clinics in and around St. Cloud. According to the FTC, CentraCare’s planned acquisition of SCMG would combine the two largest providers of adult primary care, pediatric, and OB/GYN services in the St. Cloud area. By eliminating SCMG as a potential alternative in the St. Cloud area, the acquisition would likely increase CentraCare’s bargaining power vis-à-vis commercial health plans, allowing it to raise reimbursement rates and secure more favorable terms, the complaint states. However, SCMG was failing financially, and a number of physicians had already left the practice. SCMG’s multi-year search did not identify an alternative purchaser to CentraCare for the entire group, but at least one local provider has expressed interest in expanding its practice by hiring some of SCMG’s physicians. The consent order permitted the acquisition to proceed, but lessened its potential anticompetitive effects by requiring CentraCare to allow a number of adult primary care, pediatric, and OB/GYN physicians to leave the health system and work for other local providers or establish a new practice in the area and to provide certain financial incentives to a number of departing physicians.

German cement producer HeidelbergCement AG and Italian producer Italcementi S.p.A. agreed to divest a cement plant in Martinsburg, WV and up to 11 cement distribution terminals in six other states to settle charges that their proposed $4.2 billion merger would likely harm competition in five regional markets for cement in the United States. Heidelberg and Italcementi are the second and fourth largest producers of cement in the world, and in the United States, the two companies compete through their respective U.S. subsidiaries, Lehigh Hanson and Essroc Cement Corp., to sell portland cement – an essential ingredient in making concrete. According to the FTC complaint, the merger as proposed would harm competition for portland cement in five metropolitan areas: Baltimore-Washington, DC; Richmond, Virginia; Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Virginia; Syracuse, New York; and Indianapolis, Indiana. In each of these markets, the FTC alleges the merger as originally proposed would have reduced the number of competitively significant suppliers from three to two. The proposed consent agreement requires the merged company to divest to an FTC-approved buyer an Essroc cement plant and quarry in Martinsburg, West Virginia; seven Essroc terminals in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania; and a Lehigh terminal in Solvay, New York. At the buyer’s option, the order also requires the merged company to divest two additional Essroc terminals in Ohio. Under the proposed order, these divestitures must occur within 120 days after the merger is complete. In addition, the merged company has ten days after the merger is complete to divest Essroc’s terminal in Indianapolis to Cemex, Inc.

The FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that the proposed $982 million merger of Canadian chemical suppliers Superior Plus Corp. and Canexus Corp. would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition in the North American market for sodium chlorate – a commodity chemical used to bleach wood pulp that is then processed into paper, tissue, diaper liners, and other products. Superior and Canexus are two of the three major producers of sodium chlorate in North America. If the merger takes place, the new company and rival AkzoNobel will control approximately 80 percent of the total sodium chlorate production capacity in North America.  By combining more than half of all North American sodium chlorate production capacity in the merged Superior and Canexus, the acquisition is likely to lead to anticompetitive reductions in output and higher prices, the complaint alleges. Additionally, by removing Canexus as an independent sodium chlorate producer, with its large scale and low-costs, the acquisition will also increase the likelihood of coordination in an already vulnerable market, according to the complaint.  The FTC also authorized staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in federal court to prevent the parties from consummating the merger and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding. The FTC and the Canadian Competition Bureau collaborated in this investigation.  On June 30, the parties abandoned their plans.

Holding company Leucadia National Corporation has agreed to pay $240,000 in civil penalties to resolve FTC allegations that it violated federal premerger reporting laws by failing to report a conversion of its ownership interest in the financial services company Knight Capital
Group, Inc. In July 2013, Knight Capital consolidated with another financial services company, GETCO Holding Company, LLC to become KCG Holdings, Inc. That transaction converted Leucadia’s ownership interest in Knight Capital into nearly 16.5 million voting shares of the new entity, KCG Holdings, worth approximately $173 million. Leucadia did not report the transaction, according to the complaint, because it thought that it qualified for an exemption applicable to institutional investors. Although Leucadia consulted experienced HSR counsel in connection with the transaction, their counsel erroneously concluded that the exemption applied. Leucadia made a corrective filing in September 2014, acknowledging that the acquisition was reportable under the HSR Act. Even though Leucadia relied on the advice of counsel, the FTC determined to seek civil penalties because, as noted in the complaint, Leucadia had previously violated the HSR Act in 2007, which led to a corrective filing in 2008.

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.

Drug Testing Compliance Group, LLC, agreed to settle charges that it illegally invited one of its competitors to enter into a customer allocation agreement in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.  The proposed settlement prohibits DTC Group from communicating with competitors about rates or prices (although it does not bar public posting of rates). The settlement also prohibits the company from soliciting, entering into, or maintaining an agreement with any competitor to divide markets, allocate customers, or fix prices; and from urging any competitor to raise, fix, or maintain prices, or to limit or reduce service.

The National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB) agreed to remove provisions in its Code of Ethics that the FTC charged limit competition among its members. The consent order settling the FTC’s allegations requires NAAB to end certain advertising restrictions, remove references to the restrictions from its website and official documents, publish and distribute an announcement regarding the consent agreement and the resulting changes to the Code of Ethics, and implement an antitrust compliance program.