Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Tobacco companies Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc. agreed to divest four cigarette brands to Imperial Tobacco Group to settle FTC charges that their proposed $27.4 billion merger would likely be anticompetitive. The order requires Reynolds to divest to Imperial four established cigarette brands: Winston, Kool, Salem, and Maverick. Imperial is an international tobacco manufacturer with a competitive presence in about 70 countries, but a comparatively small presence in the United States. With the acquisition of the divested assets, Imperial would become a more substantial competitor in the United States. The Commission’s order requires not only that the brands be divested, but also that Reynolds divest to Imperial the Lorillard manufacturing facilities in Greensboro, North Carolina, and provide Imperial with the opportunity to hire most of the existing Lorillard management, staff, and salesforce. It also requires the newly merged Reynolds and Lorillard to provide Imperial with retail shelf space for a short period, and to provide other operational support during the transition.

The Commission challenged major consumer electronics manufacturers Panasonic Corporation's proposed $9 billion acquisition of Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., requiring that Sanyo sell its portable nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery business related assets, including a premier manufacturing plant in Japan. NiMH batteries power two-way radios, among other products, which are used by police and fire departments nationwide.

Cardinal Health, Inc. agreed to resolve charges that it illegally monopolized 25 local markets for the sale and distribution of low-energy radiopharmaceuticals and forced hospitals and clinics to pay inflated prices for these drugs. According to the FTC’s complaint, through separate acquisitions in 2003 and 2004, Cardinal became the largest operator of radiopharmacies in the United States and the sole radiopharmacy operator in 25 metropolitan areas. Between 2003 and 2008, Cardinal employed various tactics to coerce and induce two suppliers to refuse to grant distribution rights for their respective heart perfusion agents products to new competitors in the relevant markets. As a result of these tactics, the complaint alleges that Cardinal obtained de facto exclusive distribution rights to the only HPAs available on the market and prevented numerous potential entrants from gaining access to these radiopharmaceuticals. The stipulated order requires Cardinal to pay $26.8 million of ill-gotten gains and represents the second largest monetary settlement the FTC has obtained in an antitrust case. The money will be deposited into a fund for distribution to injured customers. The order also includes provisions to prevent future violations and restore competition in six markets where Cardinal remains the dominant radiopharmacy.

Global pharmaceutical company Novartis AG agreed to divest Habitrol, its nicotine replacement therapy patch, to settle FTC charges that its consumer health care products joint venture with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) would likely be anticompetitive. Under the terms of the proposed joint venture agreement, GSK will control the joint venture and contribute, among other products, its nicotine patch business. Novartis will have a 36.5 percent interest in the joint venture, and without the divestitures required by the proposed order, would continue to own the Habitrol business. According to the complaint, without the divestiture contained in the proposed settlement, Novartis’s ownership of both Habitrol and a substantial interest in the joint venture that sells GSK’s nicotine patches would substantially reduce competition and lead to higher prices for Habitrol and Novartis’s private-label patches.  (C-4498)

Separately, Novartis AG also agreed to divest all assets related to its BRAF and MEK inhibitor drugs, products in development, to Boulder, Colorado-based Array BioPharma to settle FTC charges that Novartis’s $16 billion acquisition of GlaxoSmithKline’s portfolio of cancer-treatment drugs would likely be anticompetitive. According to the complaint, the Switzerland-based Novartis and the London-based GSK are two of a small number of companies with either a BRAF or MEK inhibitor currently on the market or in development, and two of only three companies marketing or developing a BRAF/MEK combination product to treat melanoma. If the acquisition goes forward as proposed, Novartis would likely delay or terminate development of both its BRAF and MEK inhibitors, as well as the combination product. Under the terms of the consent agreement, Novartis is required to provide transitional services to Array BioPharma to ensure that development of the BRAF and MEK inhibitors continues uninterrupted and that competition in BRAF and MEK inhibitor markets is not reduced. (C-4510)