Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The Commission challenged the conduct of AllCare IPA, alleging that AllCare restrained competition in fee-for-service contracts by fixing prices and other contract terms with payers, engaging in collective negotiations over the terms and conditions of dealing with payers, and preventing group members from negotiating with payers except on terms approved by All Care. The Commission issued a consent order prohibiting All Care from entering into agreements between or among physicians: 1) to negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payer; 2) to refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal, with any payer; 3) to designate the terms, conditions, or requirements upon which any physician deals, or is willing to deal, with any payer, including, but not limited to price terms; 4) not to deal individually with any payer, or not to deal with any payer through any arrangement other than one involving All Care.

The Commission issued an administrative complaint to challenge Oldcastle Architectural’s (a subsidiary of CRH) proposed $540 million acquisition of Pavestone Companies as anticompetitive in the US market for drycast concrete hardscape products sold to retailers such as The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart Stores. According to the complaint, the acquisition would reduce competition by combining the only two companies capable of the national manufacture and sale of these heavy products, which include concrete pavers, segmented retaining wall blocks, and concrete patio products, due to the difficulty in distribution of such products, and the fact that both Oldcastle and Pavestone already possess large distribution networks. The acquisition as proposed would result in Oldcastle gaining a 90% market share for the manufacture and sale of these drycast products to home centers in the United States. The Commission also authorized staff to file a complaint in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent consummation of the proposed transaction, but the respondents decided not to proceed with the proposed merger and the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint.

In order to restore competition in the U.S. market for consumer pregnancy tests, the Commission effectively reversed a consummated transaction in which Inverness Medical Innovations, a 70% market share holder, purchased the assets related to the development of a water-soluble dye based pregnancy test from ACON Laboratories in order to protect its monopoly power in the market. According to the Commission’s complaint, Inverness restrained competition in two ways. First, Inverness issued covenants not to compete to ACON, took profits from ACON’s joint venture with Church & Dwight, and purchased intellectual property rights which would restrict ACON from developing competing products. Second, Inverness limited product innovation by purchasing, but not using, the water-soluble dye test technology purchased from ACON, one of the only companies utilizing that technology. The Commission’s consent order ended any restrictions Inverness had over the joint venture between ACON and Church & Dwight, and required that Inverness divest its assets relating to the water-soluble dye technology, and its related pregnancy test product.

The Commission sought a federal court temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and issued an administrative complaint, against Whole Food Market, Inc.’s proposed acquisition of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. According to the complaint, the approximately $670 million deal raised competition problems in 21 local markets where Whole Foods and Wild Oats both operated stores and were each other’s closest competitors among premium national and organic supermarkets. The district court granted the TRO, but subsequently denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the merger’s likely effect would not be substantially to reduce competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Commission appealed the district court’s ruling on grounds that the lower court failed to apply the proper legal standard that governs preliminary injunction applications by the Commission in Section 7 cases. The appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings to determine if the proposed $670 million deal raised competition problems in numerous local markets where Whole Foods and Wild Oats both operated premium natural and organic supermarkets. In a settlement on March 6, 2009, Whole Foods agreed to sell the name brand of Wild Oats, along with 32 of the company’s stores.

There is a related administrative proceeding.

Enforcing the mandatory premerger notification filing provisions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, the Commission filed a complaint in Federal District Court charging ESL Partners and ZAM Holdings, two investment funds, with failing to make timely filings prior to making two acquisitions. The acquisitions in question were the purchase of blocks of AutoZone, Inc.’s shares in September and October of 2004. According to the Commission’s complaint, the acquisition met the filing threshold established in the HSR act, and thus was required to file. ESL and ZAM agreed to pay civil penalties of $525,000 and $275,000 respectively to settle the Commission’s charges.

The Commission issued an administrative complaint to block CCS Corporation’s proposed $85 million acquisition of Newpark Environmental Services. According to the complaint, the proposed transaction was anticompetitive because it would consolidate two of the leading providers of waste disposal services for the offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf Coast Region, leading to higher prices and decreased service levels. In response to the complaint, CCS, a subsidiary of Red Sky, threatened to close down its operations in the Gulf Coast should the acquisition not receive the necessary regulatory approvals. The Commission filed for a preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order in federal court. As a result, the parties abandoned the transaction, and the Commission dismissed its administrative complaint.

In an administrative complaint issued on October 25, 2001, the Commission challenged the February 2001 purchase of the Water Division and Engineered Construction Division of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. alleging that the consummated merger significantly reduced competition in four separate markets involving the design and construction of various types of field-erected specialty industrial storage tanks in the United States. On June 27, 2003, an administrative law judge upheld the complaint and ordered the divestiture all of the assets acquired in the acquisition. In December 2004, the Commission approved an interim consent order prohibiting Chicago Bridge & Iron from altering the assets acquired from Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. except “in the ordinary course of business.” These assets included but were not limited to real property; personal property; equipment; inventories; and intellectual property. On January 7, 2005 the Commission upheld in part the ruling of an administrative law judge that Chicago Bridge & Iron’s acquisition of the Water Division and the Engineered Construction Division of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. created a near-monopoly in four separate markets involving the design and construction of various types of field-erected specialty industrial storage tanks in the United States. In an effort to restore competition as it existed prior to the merger, the Commission ordered Chicago Bridge to reorganize the relevant product business into two separate, stand-alone, viable entities capable of competing in the markets described in the complaint and to divest one of those entities within six months. On January 25, 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Commission's order.  In November 2008, the Commission approved divestiture of the assets to Matrix Service Company.