Tag: Competition

The National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM), a trade association with more than 9,000 members nationwide, settled charges that it violated federal law by enabling and encouraging the exchange of competitively sensitive price information among its members. The FTC alleged that NAMM organized meetings at which its members were encouraged to communicate, and did in fact share, information about prices and business strategy. To the detriment of consumers, NAMM’s conduct enhanced the members’ ability to coordinate price increases for musical instruments. In settling the complaint, NAMM agreed to stop engaging in such conduct.

The Commission challenged Lubrizol Corporation’s consummated 2007 acquisition of the oxidate assets of The Lockhart Company which had the effect of substantially lessening competition in the already highly concentrated U.S. market for chemical rust inhibitors. These inhibitors are commonly used to prevent rusting during the manufacture of metal products such as automobiles and other heavy equipment. According to the Commission’s complaint the acquisition removed Lubrizol’s last substantial competitor in the relevant market. In addition, the Commission challenged a non-compete agreement included in the terms of the acquisition which prevented Lockhart from competing in the relevant market for 5 years as anticompetitive because it restrained the ability of new firms to enter the market. The Commission issued a consent order remedying its anticompetitive concerns requiring the divestiture of the oxidate assets in question to Additives International and the elimination of the non-compete agreement.

Drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) agreed to pay $2.1 million – the largest fine allowed by law – for failing to inform the FTC of agreements reached with Apotex, Inc., regarding potential generic competition to its blockbuster drug Plavix. BMS’s conduct violated a 2003 FTC Order and the Medicare Modernization Act, which requires that certain drug company agreements be accurately reported to both the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The complaint alleges that BMS failed to disclose that, as part of a patent settlement in which Apotex agreed not to launch its generic version of Plavix for several years, BMS also orally stated, among other things, that it would not compete with Apotex during the first 180 days after Apotex did market its new generic drug.