Tag: Competition

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Iowa Movers and Warehousemen’s Association agreed to stop certain conduct to settle allegations that it filed collectively established tariffs for intrastate moving rates in Iowa - a practice which did not meet the requirements of the state action doctrine because the conduct was not actively supervised by the state.

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.

A consent order prohibits a St. Louis, Missouri physicians’ organization from negotiating with third party payers on behalf of its member physicians and from refusing to deal with health insurance companies.

The Physician Network Consulting, L.L.C. of Baton Rouge Louisiana; Michael J. Taylor; Professional Orthopedic Services, Inc; The Bone and Joint Clinic of Baton Rouge, Inc.; Baton Rouge Orthopaedic Clinic, L.L.C.; and Orthopaedic Surgery Associates of Baton Rouge, L.L.C. settled charges that they entered into agreements to fix prices and other terms on which they would deal with United HealthCare of Louisiana, Inc., a health insurance company. Physician Network Consulting is an agent for Professional Orthopedic Services’ members.