Tag: Competition

Keystone Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC, an orthopedic practice formed through a combination of six independent orthopedic practices, agreed to settle charges that the merger substantially reduced competition for orthopedic services in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The complaint also names Orthopaedic Associates, one of the six practices that merged into Keystone in 2011, which was split off from Keystone in 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, Keystone and Orthopaedic Associates are required to obtain prior approval from the Commission before acquiring any interests in each other, before acquiring another orthopedic practice in Berks County, and before hiring or offering membership to an orthopedist who has provided services in Berks County in the past year. The settlement is designed to maintain competition in the relevant market by preserving Orthopaedic Associates’ separation, and allowing health plans to avail themselves of current market conditions by renegotiating existing Keystone contracts.

Three affiliated hedge fund companies and their management company, Third Point LLC, have agreed to settle FTC charges that they violated premerger reporting laws in connection with their 2011 acquisitions of stock in Yahoo! Inc. The complaint alleges that Third Point Partners
Qualified L.P., Third Point Ultra, LTD, and Third Point Offshore Fund, LTD failed to observe the filing and waiting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act before purchasing shares in Yahoo. According to the complaint, the three defendant funds claimed that they were exempt from reporting to the U.S. antitrust authorities because the purchases were made solely for investment purposes. At the time of the stock purchases, however, defendant Third Point LLC, which made investment decisions on behalf of the funds, was taking actions inconsistent with an investment-only intent. Under the terms of the proposed stipulated five-year federal court order, the defendants are prohibited from relying on the investment-only exemption if they have contacted third parties to gauge their interest in joining the board of the target company, communicated with the target company about proposed candidates for its board, or engaged in other specified conduct in the four months prior to acquiring voting securities above the HSR Act threshold. In this case, the agencies determined not to seek civil penalties based on several factors, including that the violation was inadvertent and short-lived, and this was the defendants’ first violation of the HSR Act.

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.