Tag: Competition

The FTC charged that, as proposed, DSM's purchase of RV&FC would have a significant adverse effect on competition in the worldwide market for phytase. Phytase is an enzyme added to certain animal feed to promote the digestion of nutrients necessary for livestock production.  According to the complaint, absent relief, the transaction would lead to DSM being part of alliances that supply more than 90 percent of the $150 million phytase market worldwide. A consent order permitted DSM N.V. to acquire the Vitamins and Fine Chemicals Division of Roche Holding AG but requires DSM to divest its phytase business to BASF AG.

In the complaint dated March 30, 2001 the Commission alleged that Schering - Plough, the manufacturer of K-Dur 20 - a prescribed potassium chloride, used to treat patients with low blood potassium levels - entered into anticompetitive agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation to delay their generic versions of the K-Dur 20 drug from entering the market. According to the charges, Schering-Plough paid Upsher- Smith $60 million and paid American Home Products $15 million to keep the low-cost generic version of the drug off the market. The charges against American Home Products were settled by a consent agreement. An initial decision filed July 2, 2002 dismissed all charges against Schering - Plough and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. On December 8, 2003 the Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s initial decision and found that Schering-Plough Corporation entered into agreements with Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. and American Home Products to delay the entry of generic versions of Schering’s branded K-Dur 20. According to the opinion, the parties settled patent litigation with terms that included unconditional payments by Schering in return for agreements to defer introduction of the generic products. The Commission entered an order that would bar similar conduct in the future. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit set aside and vacated the Commission decision finding that the agreements were immune from antitrust review if their anticompetitive effects were within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent. The Commission filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2005, which the Court denied.

The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association settled charges that it filed tariffs on behalf of its 400 members containing rules  that called for automatic increases in intrastate rates during the summer months, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. In addition, the organization agreed to void its collectively filed tariffs current in effect in New Hampshire, ensuring that future tarriff provisions would be filed individually.

An association of household goods movers agreed to settle FTC charges that it violated the antitrust laws by engaging in the collective filing of tariffs on behalf of its members who compete in the provision of moving services in the state of Alabama. The conduct is not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order, Alabama Trucking Association, Inc. agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates and to void collectively filed tariffs currently in effect in Alabama.

In an administrative complaint issued on July 8, 2003, the Commission charged that the association composed of competing household goods movers filed collective rates for intrastate moving services in the state of Mississippi. According to the complaint, these activities were not protected under the state action doctrine because they were not actively supervised by the state. Under terms of a final consent order the Movers Conference agreed to stop filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates.

The Surgical Specialists of Yakima, Cascade Surgical Partners, Inc., P.S. and Yakima Surgical Associates, P.S. settled charges that they jointly entered into agreements for their members to fix prices and terms for the provision of medical services when dealing with health care insurers.

A Georgia physician-hospital organization and its other associated physician groups settled charges that they entered into agreements to fix physician and hospital prices and refused to deal with insurance companies, except on collectively agreed-upon terms.

A consent order settled charges that the household goods movers association filed collectively established rate tariffs for its members in Minnesota, conduct that was not protected by the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state. According to the complaint, the MTSA filed collectively set rates on behalf of its 89 members, which had the effect of fixing prices of household goods moves, and restricting price competition to the detriment of consumers.