Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and several other drug companies violated antitrust laws by using pay-for-delay settlements to block consumers’ access to lower-cost generic versions of Opana ER and Lidoderm with an agreement not to market an authorized generic – often called a “no-AG commitment” – as a form of reverse payment. The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Endo paid the first generic companies that filed for FDA approval – Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. – to eliminate the risk of competition for Opana ER and Lidoderm, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Opana ER is an extendedrelease opioid used to relieve moderate to severe pain. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia, a complication of shingles. The FTC is seeking a court judgment declaring that the defendants’ conduct violates the antitrust laws, ordering the companies to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and permanently barring them from engaging in similar anticompetitive behavior in the future.  Teikoko Pharma USA and Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. agreed to a stipulated order resolving FTC charges.

In November 2016, the FTC voluntarily dismissed the complaint in this action.  On January 23, 2017, the FTC refiled charges related to the Lidoderm agreements in federal court in California (Federal Trade Commission vs. Allergan plc; Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al) and refiled charges related to the Opana ER agreement in a Part 3 administrative proceeding.  (In re Impax Laboratories, Inc.)

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.

Step N Grip, LLC, which sells products online to keep rugs from curling at the edges, settled charges that it invited its closest competitor to fix and raise prices for their competing rug devices, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Under the settlement agreement, Step N Grip is required to stop communicating with its competitors about prices. It is also barred from entering into, participating in, inviting, or soliciting an agreement with any competitor to divide markets, to allocate customers, or to fix prices; and from urging any competitor to raise, fix, or maintain its price or rate levels or limit or reduce service. The order is in effect for 20 years.

Pharmaceutical companies Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. settled FTC charges that they entered into an unlawful agreement not to compete in the sale of generic versions of Kapvay, a prescription drug used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to enforce the anticompetitive provisions of their agreement. Until May 15, 2015, Concordia and Par were the only two firms permitted by the FDA to market generic Kapvay. Rather than competing against one another, Concordia agreed not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay in exchange for a share of Par’s revenues. Under the terms of the settlements, Concordia is prohibited from enforcing the anticompetitive provisions of its agreement with Par, including the profit-sharing provisions, and Par is prohibited from enforcing provisions that bar Concordia from agreeing not to sell an authorized generic version of Kapvay. Concordia began selling generic Kapvay after learning of the FTC’s investigation.

Medical device company Zimmer Holdings, Inc. agreed to divest U.S. rights and assets related to unicondylar knee implants, total elbow implants, and bone cement in order to settle FTC charges that its proposed $13.35 billion acquisition of Biomet Inc. is anticompetitive. According to the complaint, Zimmer and Biomet are two of the only three substantial competitors in the U.S. markets for unicondylar knee implants and total elbow implants, and two of only four significant competitors in the U.S. market for bone cement. The order requires Zimmer to divest to Smith & Nephew the U.S. intellectual property, manufacturing technology, and existing inventory relating to its unicondylar knee implant, and to provide transitional services to help them establish manufacturing capabilities and secure necessary FDA approvals. The order also requires Biomet to divest to DJO the U.S. intellectual property, manufacturing technology, and existing inventory relating to its total elbow implant and bone cement products, and it facilitates DJO’s hiring of the Biomet sales representatives and other staff who work with these products.

According to the FTC's complaint, Bi-Lo’s proposed $265 million acquisition of the Delhaize supermarkets would likely harm consumers through higher grocery prices, diminished quality and reduced service levels in 11 local markets in three states. The consent order requires the merged Bi-Lo/Delhaize to sell 12 stores to Rowes IGA Supermarkets, HAC, Inc., W. Lee Flowers & Co., Inc. and Food Giant. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Bi-Lo will acquire the Delhaize stores on a rolling basis, through eight separate deal closings over a 10-week period. Each supermarket divestiture must be completed within 10 days of the respective Bi-Lo/Delhaize closing date. The FTC settlement preserves supermarket competition in 11 local markets in three states.

The FTC challenged Verisk Analytics, Inc.’s proposed $650 million acquisition of EagleView Technology Corporation, alleging that it would likely reduce competition and result in a virtual monopoly in the U.S. market for rooftop aerial measurement products used by the insurance industry to assess property claims. The FTC issued an administrative complaint and authorized staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in federal court.  On 12/16/14, Verisk Analytics, Inc. announced that it would abandon its plans to acquire EagleView, and the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint.

Two Internet resellers of UPC barcodes used by retailers for price scanning and inventory purposes, have settled charges that they violated the FTC Act by inviting competitors to join in a collusive scheme to raise the prices charged for barcodes sold online. In separate complaints, the FTC charged that InstantUPCCodes.com and its principal, Jacob J. Alifraghis, and 680 Digital, Inc., d/b/a Nationwide Barcode and its principal, Philip B. Peretz violated the FTC Act by inviting competitors to collude to raise prices for barcodes sold over the Internet. The Commission charges Instant and Nationwide with inviting an agreement to raise prices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC has not alleged, however, that the invitations to collude resulted in an agreement on price or other terms of competition. The proposed orders setting the complaints against Instant and Nationwide and their respective principals are designed to remedy the anticompetitive conduct. Specifically, the proposed orders bar Instant and Nationwide from communicating with their competitors about barcode rates or prices; entering into, participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, inviting, offering, or soliciting an agreement with any competitor to divide markets, allocate consumers, or fix prices; and urging any competitor to raise, fix, or maintain price or to limit or reduce the terms or levels of service they provide.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Berkshire Hathaway changed convertible notes it owned in USG into 21.4 million voting securities on December 9, 2013. As a result of the conversion, the value of its USG holdings exceeded $283.6 million, the premerger reporting threshold under the HSR Act at the time. The company subsequently made a corrective filing, and acknowledged that the transaction should have been reported under the HSR Act. The final judgment settling the complaint requires Berkshire Hathaway to pay a civil penalty of $896,000, based on the time it was in violation of the HSR Act, from December 9, 2013 when it acquired the shares via the conversion through February 3, 2014, the end of the waiting period for the corrective filing.

The FTC alleged that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.

The FTC alleges that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.

According to the FTC complaint, the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro), which represents companies and individuals that provide legal support services in California, violated the FTC Act through code of ethics provisions that restrained its members from competing against each other on price, disparaging each other through advertising, and soliciting legal support professionals for employment.  The proposed order requires the association to cease and desist from such practices in the future.  The order also requires CALSPro to maintain an antitrust compliance program.

The FTC challenged Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.’s proposed $2.8 billion acquisition of rival casino operator Ameristar Casinos, Inc., alleging that the proposed deal would reduce competition and lead to higher prices and lower quality for casino customers in the St. Louis, Missouri and Lake Charles, Louisiana areas. In St. Louis, the two companies operated competing casinos, and in the Lake Charles area, Pinnacle operates one casino, and Ameristar is constructing a new casio to open next year. The FTC issued an administrative complaint against the two companies alleging that the deal would substantially lessen competition for casino services in the St. Louis and Lake Charles areas. The FTC also authorized staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, but parties agreed to divest two casinos, one in St. Louis and another in Lake Charles, to settle the administrative charges.