Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Valassis, a leading producer of free-standing newspaper inserts in the United States, has settled charges that it violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by attempting to collude with News America Marketing, its only rival, to eliminate competition between the two companies. During a conference call with industry analysts, a Valassis executive invited NewsAmerica to join in a scheme to allocate customers and fix prices in order to end an ongoing price war between the two companies. Under the consent order settling the FTC’s complaint, Valassis is barred from engaging in or inviting collusive agreements with other publishers or attempting to collude with its competitors.

The consent order requires that Allergan and Inamed divest the rights to develop and distribute Reloxin, a potential Botox rival, to settle charges that Allergan’s $3.2 billion purchase of Inamed would reduce competition and force consumers to pay higher prices for botulinum toxin type A products. Under the terms of the FTC settlement, the companies will return the development and distribution rights to Reloxin to Ipsen Ltd., its U.K.- based manufacturer.

After an administrative trial, the administrative law judge found that a group of affiliated intrastate movers had engaged in horizontal price-fixing by filing collective rates on behalf of its member motor common carriers for the intrastate transportation of property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judge also ruled that the association’s conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because the State of Kentucky did not supervise the rate-making practices of the group. On July 12, 2004, the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. filed an appeal of the initial decision with the Commission. On June 22, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion finding that the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. engaged in illegal price-fixing by jointly filing tariffs containing collective rates on behalf of its members, and that the state action doctrine does not immunize that activity from antitrust liability. On August 22, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Commission.