Tag: Competition

The Commission issued an administrative complaint and initiated federal court action to block Western Refining, Inc.’s $1.4 billion proposed acquisition of rival energy company Giant Industries, Inc. to preserve competition in the supply of bulk light petroleum products, including motor gasoline, diesel fuels, and jet fuels, in northern New Mexico. After a week-long trial, the federal district court denied the Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction, rejecting arguments that Giant had unique opportunities to increase supply and lower fuel prices in northern New Mexico. In October of 2007, the Commission dismissed its administrative complaint, concluding that further prosecution would not be in the public interest.

Duke agreed to divest 2,780 miles of gas gathering pipeline in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to settle antitrust concerns stemming from Duke’s and Phillips Petroleum Company’s proposed merger of their natural gas gathering and processing businesses and its proposed acquisition of gas gathering assets in central Oklahoma from Conoco Inc. and Mitchell Energy and Development Corporation. The new company will be known as Duke Energy Field Services, L.L.C.

The Commission charged that the acquisition of K2, Inc, a sporting goods manufacturer, by Jarden Corporation would likely harm competition. The proposed $1.2 billion transaction would have joined two of the nation’s leading producers of monofilament fishing line, the most common type of line used in the United States. The consent order settling the charges requires Jarden to sell all assets related to the manufacture and sale of four varieties of monofilament fishing line to sporting goods company W.C. Bradley/Zebco.

The Commission charged a group of optometrists in Puerto Rico with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among members of the Colegio de Optometras to refuse, or threaten to refuse, to accept vision and health care contracts except on collectively agreed-upon terms. Two leaders of the group were also charged with facilitating the agreement by urging members not to participate in the vision network. The Commission’s consent order settling these charges bars the group and the two leaders from engaging in such conduct, while allowing them to undertake certain kinds of joint contracting arrangements by which physician participants control costs and improve quality by managing the provision of services. FTC staff worked with the Office of Monopolistic Affairs of Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice on this case.

The Commission settled a September 15 2003 administrative complaint charging the South Carolina State Board of Dentistry with unlawfully restraining competition by enacting a rule that required a dentist to examine every child before a dental hygienist could provide preventive dental care – such as cleanings – in schools. The Board, which is a state regulatory agency composed primarily of practicing dentists, claimed that its actions were immune from antitrust challenge under the state action doctrine, but that argument was rejected in a 2004 Commission opinion holding that the Board’s conduct was directly contrary to state law. In 2006, the court of appeals dismissed the Board’s interlocutory petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in January 2007. The FTC’s 2007 consent requires the Board to publicly support the current state public health program that allows hygienists to provide preventive dental care to schoolchildren, especially those from low-income families.