Skip to main content

Displaying 3821 - 3840 of 4596

Allergan, Inc., and Inamed Corporation, In the Matter of

The consent order requires that Allergan and Inamed divest the rights to develop and distribute Reloxin, a potential Botox rival, to settle charges that Allergan’s $3.2 billion purchase of Inamed would reduce competition and force consumers to pay higher prices for botulinum toxin type A products. Under the terms of the FTC settlement, the companies will return the development and distribution rights to Reloxin to Ipsen Ltd., its U.K.- based manufacturer.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
061 0031
Docket Number
C-4156

Health Care Alliance of Laredo, L.C., In the Matter of

A physicians’ independent practice association in Texas agreed to settle charges that it engaged in unlawful collective bargaining to set fees its members would accept from health insurance plans and advised its members against dealing individually with plans. The Commission charged that both practices resulted in higher medical costs for consumers. The consent order settling the FTC’s charges will prohibit the IPA from engaging in such anticompetitive conduct in the future.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410097

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and IVAX Corporation, In the Matter of

The consent order allowed Teva to acquire IVAX Corporation, provided the companies sell the rights and assets needed to manufacture and market 15 generic pharmaceutical products. Among the drugs sold were several forms of generic amoxicillin and amoxicillin clavulanate potassium that are widely used in the United States.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
051 0214
Docket Number
C-4155

Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc., In the Matter of

After an administrative trial, the administrative law judge found that a group of affiliated intrastate movers had engaged in horizontal price-fixing by filing collective rates on behalf of its member motor common carriers for the intrastate transportation of property within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The judge also ruled that the association’s conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because the State of Kentucky did not supervise the rate-making practices of the group. On July 12, 2004, the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. filed an appeal of the initial decision with the Commission. On June 22, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous opinion finding that the Kentucky Household Goods Carriers Association, Inc. engaged in illegal price-fixing by jointly filing tariffs containing collective rates on behalf of its members, and that the state action doctrine does not immunize that activity from antitrust liability. On August 22, 2006, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the opinion of the Commission.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210115g
Docket Number
9309

Announced Action for November 18, 2005

Date
Commission approval of final consent order: Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved the issuance of a final consent order in the matter concerning DaVita, Inc. and Gambro AB...