Tag: Competition

Pharmaceutical companies Actavis plc and Forest Laboratories, Inc. agreed to sell or relinquish their rights to four generic pharmaceuticals that treat hypertension, angina, cirrhosis, and prevent seizures to settle FTC charges that Actavis’s acquisition of Forest likely would be anticompetitive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Actavis’s acquisition of Forest, as originally proposed, would violate federal antitrust laws by reducing competition in the markets for three current generic products. In addition, the FTC’s complaint also alleges that the proposed transaction would delay the introduction of another generic drug. Under the proposed FTC settlement order, the companies have agreed to relinquish their rights to market generic diltiazem hydrochloride (AB4) to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.; sell generic ursodiol and generic lamotrigine ODT to Impax Laboratories, Inc.; and sell generic propranolol hydrochloride to Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Actavis and Forest must ensure the viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the drugs that are
being divested until they are sold.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. agreed to sell its Advantage Rent A Car business, as well as the rights to operate 29 Dollar Thrifty on-airport locations around the country, to settle charges that Hertz’s $2.3 billion acquisition of Dollar Thrifty would have been harmed competition in 72 airport markets throughout the United States.

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.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and Precision Dermatology, Inc. agreed to sell or relinquish rights to Precision’s branded single-agent topical tretinoins and generic Retin-A, common acne treatments, to settle FTC charges that Valeant’s proposed $475 million acquisition of Precision would likely be anticompetitive. According to the FTC complaint, Valeant’s proposed acquisition of Precision would likely reduce competition in the market for branded and generic single-agent topical tretinoins, and in a separate market for generic Retin-A. The proposed consent order requires Valeant to sell Precision’s assets related to Tretin-X, its branded single-agent topical tretinoin, to Actavis, Inc., and Precision’s assets related to generic Retin-A to Matawan Pharmaceuticals LLC, a subsidiary of Rouses Point Pharmaceuticals.

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.