Skip to main content

Displaying 3641 - 3660 of 4527

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, The, Inc., and Pathmark Stores, Inc., In the Matter of

The Commission intervened in the proposed $1.3 billion acquisition of Pathmark Stores by Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea (A&P), alleging the transaction would have reduced competition among grocery stores in the highly concentrated markets of Staten Island and Shirley, Long Island, New York. A&P operates stores under the A&P, A&P Super Foodmart, Food Basics, Food Emporium, Super Fresh, and Waldbaum’s banners. The Commission’s consent order required A&P to divest five supermarkets in Staten Island, and one supermarket in Shirley.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
071 0120

Kyphon, Inc., Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies Ltd. et al., In the Matter of

The Commission challenged Kyphon Inc.’s $220 million proposed acquisition of the spinal assets of Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies, Ltd. and Discotech Orthopedic Technologies (collectively Disc-O-Tech) as anticompetitive in the market for minimally invasive vertebral compression fracture treatment products in the U.S. Disc-O-Tech’s Confidence products promised real benefits to patients in treating these painful fractures in a minimally invasive way, and threatened Kyphon’s near-monopoly on treatment options. The Commission’s consent order required that Kyphon divest all assets, intellectual property and development rights related to the Confidence brand to an FTC-approved buyer

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
071 0101

ValueAct Partners, LP, United States of America (for the FTC)

In December 2007, the Commission challenged ValueAct Captial Partners’ violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Pre-Merger Notification Act’s filing requirements related to the acquisition of stock in three companies, Gartner, Inc., Catalina marketing Group, and Acxiom Corp. The firm previously violated the HSR filing requirements in 2003, and after making corrective filings, and agreeing to put HSR safeguards into place to ensure compliance with the filing requirements, the Commission decided to take no action. However, ValueAct failed to enact the necessary preventative measures and again violated the HSR filing requirements with its aforementioned acquisitions resulting in the Commission seeking civil penalties in the amount of $1.1 million.

Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0510204

Owens Corning., In the Matter of

The Commission remedied competitive problems raised by Owens Corning’s proposed acquisition of glass fiber reinforcements and composite fabric assets 8 from Compagnie de Saint Gobain. The investigation involved cooperation among staff of the FTC, the European Commission, and Mexico’s Federal Competition Commission. After staff from the competition agencies raised antitrust concerns, the parties modified their agreement to exclude Saint Gobain’s glass fiber reinforcement assets in the U.S. and certain assets in Europe. The Commission’s consent order addressed additional competitive problems in the highly concentrated North American market for continuous filament mat, which is used in the production of non-electrical laminate, marine parts and accessories, and other products. The order requires Owens Corning to divest sufficient U.S. continuous filament mat facilities, assets, and intellectual property to enable the buyer effectively to produce and sell the products in competition with the new Owens Corning/Saint Gobain joint venture.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
061 0281

Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd.; Warner Chilcott Corporation; Warner Chilcott (US) Inc.; Galen (Chemicals) Ltd.; and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Commission settled with Barr Laboratories concluding its federal court action challenging an agreement between Warner Chilcott and Barr in which, the Commission alleged, Barr agreed not to sell a lower-priced generic substitute of Warner Chilcott’s branded Ovcon 35, an oral contraceptive drug, for several years for $20 million. On November 5, 2005 a complaint was filed in District Court for the District Columbia seeking to put an end to an agreement between drug manufacturers Galen Chemicals Ltd. (now known as Warner Chilcott) and Barr Laboratories that denies consumers the choice of a lower priced generic version of Warner Chilcott’s Ovcon® oral contraceptive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Barr planned to launch a generic version of Ovcon as soon it received regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Warner Chilcott expected to lose half its Ovcon sales within the first year if Ovcon faced competition from a generic equivalent. Faced with this prospect, instead of competing with Barr, Warner Chilcott entered into an agreement 24 with Barr, preventing entry of Barr’s generic Ovcon into the United States for five years. In exchange for Barr’s promise not to compete, Warner Chilcott paid Barr $20 million. In September 2006, under the threat of a preliminary injunction sought by the Commission, Warner Chilcott waived the exclusionary provision in its agreement, and the next day Barr announced its intention to start selling generic Ovcon in the United States. Under the terms of the October 2006 order settling the Commission’s charges, Warner Chilcott agreed to certain terms to protect generic entry into the market.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410034

Mylan Laboratories Inc. and E. Merck oHG., In the Matter of

The Commission ordered divestitures to resolve competitive concerns in the U.S. market for five generic drugs stemming from Mylan Laboratories’ proposed acquisition of the generic arm of Merck Pharmaceuticals, a transaction valued at approximately $6.6 billion. Under a September 2007 consent order with the Commission, Mylan and Merck must divest all assets relating to flecainide acetate tablets, acebutolol hydrochloride capsules, guanfacine hydrochloride tablets, nicardipine hydrochloride capsules, and sotalol hydrochloride. The generic drugs at issue are used for the treatment of many conditions, including hypertension and heart arrhythmia. The order requires the divestiture of all assets related to the relevant products to Amneal Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug manufacturer.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0710164

American Renal Associates, Inc., a corporation, and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., a corporation

The Commission settled charges stemming from American Renal Associates’ (ARA) proposed acquisition of assets from Fresenius AG, which would have made ARA the only operator of dialysis clinics in the Warwick/Cranston area of Rhode Island. The purchase agreement called for the sale of five Fresenius clinics to ARA, including two in the Warwick/Cranston area, and the closure of an additional three Fresenius clinics in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The parties terminated their purchase agreement after FTC staff raised antitrust concerns, but the Commission challenged the closure of the three clinics as a naked agreement to pay a competitor to exit the market, and also alleged a Section 7 violation in the Warwick/ Cranston market for dialysis services. The Commission’s order bars the parties from entering into any agreement to close dialysis clinics, and requires ARA to notify the Commission if it intends to acquire any dialysis centers in the Warwick/Cranston area for a period of 10 years.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0510234

Paul L. Foster, Western Refining, Inc., and Giant Industries, Inc., In the Matter of

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.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0610259
Docket Number
9323

Duke Energy Corporation, Phillips Petroleum Company, and Duke Energy Field Services L.L.C., In the Matter of

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.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
001 0080
Docket Number
C-3932