Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC required hospital management company Universal Health Services, Inc. to sell an acute inpatient psychiatric facility in the El Paso, Texas/Santa Teresa, New Mexico area to settle charges that UHS’s proposed acquisition of Ascend Health Corporation would be anticompetitive. As proposed, the deal allegedly would lead to a virtual monopoly in the provision of acute inpatient psychiatric services to commercially insured patients in the El Paso/Santa Teresa area.  The FTC's final order requires UHS to sell its Peak Behavioral Health Services facility within six months to an FTC-approved buyer. In addition, to ensure that the Peak assets are able to attract a buyer that can effectively compete with UHS after the sale, the proposed order allows the Commission to require a second UHS hospital, Mesilla Valley Hospital in Las Cruces, New Mexico, to be sold together with Peak if Peak alone is not divested to an approved buyer within six months.

The FTC required Universal Health Services, Inc., one of the nation’s largest hospital management companies, to sell 15 psychiatric facilities as a condition of its $3.1 billion acquisition of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. As originally proposed the acquisition would have reduced competition in the provision of acute inpatient psychiatric services in three local markets: Delaware, Puerto Rico, and metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada.

Consent order requires divestiture of Baxter's Autoplex product line of Factor VIII inhibitors used in the treatment for hemophilia and the licensing of Immuno International AG's fibrin sealant, a biologic product in development to be used to control bleeding in surgical procedures. According to the complaint issued with the final order, the acquisition of Immuno International would tend to create a monopoly and increase Baxter's ability to unilaterally raise prices in the market for the research, manufacture and sale of biologic products derived from human blood plasma.

Consent order settles charges that New Balance fixed and controlled the resale prices of its shoes in an effort to raise retail prices for its athletic footwear.  According to the complaint, New Balance entered into agreements with some of its retailers to restrict price competition, and threatened to terminate or suspend shipments to retailers who did not abide by the pricing restrictions.