Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

On 4/8/2013, Bosley, Inc., the nation’s largest manager of medical/surgical hair restoration procedures, settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business practices with one of its competitors, HC (USA), Inc., commonly known as Hair Club, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In settling the FTC’s charges, Bosley has agreed not to communicate such information in the future, and will institute an antitrust compliance program. The FTC alleged that for at least the past four years, Bosley exchanged competitively sensitive, nonpublic information about its business operations with Hair Club. The information exchanged by the companies’ CEOs included details about future product offerings, surgical hair transplantation price floors and discounts, plans for business expansion and contraction, and current business operations and performance.

Graco, Inc. settled FTC charges that it violated the antitrust laws by buying Gusmer Corp. (Gusmer) in 2005 and GlasCraft, Inc. (GCI) in 2008, its two closest competitors in the North American market for fast set equipment (FSE) used by contractors to apply polyurethane foams and polyurea coatings. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges is designed to restore competition to the FSE market that was lost as a result of Graco’s acquisitions. It incorporates a private litigation settlement between Graco and Polyurethane Machinery Corp. (Gama/PMC) that requires Graco to license certain technology to Gama/PMC. The consent order also contains provisions that provide Gama/PMC and other competitors easier access to distributors, so they can distribute competing FSE products effectively in the North American market.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint  challenging electronics component manufacturer Integrated Device Technology, Inc.’s proposed $330 million acquisition of PLX Technology, Inc., a deal that allegedly would give the combined firm a near-monopoly in the market for a type of integrated computer circuits called PCIe switches, which perform critical connectivity functions in computers and other electronic devices widely used by American consumers and businesses. The Commission also authorized the staff to seek a preliminary injunction in federal district court or other relief necessary to stop the deal pending a full administrative trial, but theparties abandoned the transaction and the Commission later dismissed the complaint.

Koninklijke Ahold N.V., the parent company of Giant Food Stores, LLC, agreed to sell a supermarket outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to settle charges that its proposed acquisition of the Genuardi's supermarket chain from Safeway Inc. otherwise would be anticompetitive. The transaction, if completed, would eliminate competition between Giant and Genuardi's.  To preserve competition in the local grocery market, the consent order requires Ahold to sell a supermarket in Newtown, Pennsylvania to McCaffrey's supermarkets.

In May 1996, the Commission filed an administrative complaint charging Toys "R" Us with using its dominant position as a toy distributor to obtain agreements from toy manufacturers to stop selling to warehouse clubs the same toys that they sold to Toys "R" Us.  After an administrative trial, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding that Toys "R' Us' policy to stop carrying toys made by a manufacturer that sold the same toys to discount club stores had induced manufacturers to agree to stop supplying some toys to club stores in violation of the antitrust laws.  In October 1998, the Commission issued its decision that Toys "R Us had orchestrated horizontal and vertical agreements with and among toy manufacturers to restrict the availability of popular toys to warehouse clubs, and ordered the company to stop pressuring manufacturers to limit supply or otherwise refuse to sell to discount club stores. Toys "R" Us appealed to the Seventh Circuit, and in August 2000, the appellate court upheld the Commission's order.

In April 2014, on a petition from Toys "R" Us, the Commission modified its order to set aside certain provisions that restricted the company's ability to enter into certain conditional supply relationships, finding that Toys "R" Us is no longer the largest toy retailer.