Tag: Competition

The Commission authorized staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block Libbey’s proposed $332 million acquisition of Anchor Hocking, a subsidiary of Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., on grounds that the acquisition would substantially lessen competition in the market for soda-lime glassware sold to the food service industry in the United States. A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on January 14, 2002. The district court granted the Commission’s request for an injunction on April 22, 2002. An administrative complaint, issued on May 9, extend the injunction until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings. Pursuant to the delegation of authority, the Commission withdrew the matter from adjudication on July 25, 2002, to consider a proposed consent agreement. A consent order was finalized October 7, 2002.

Amgen settled antitrust charges that its proposed $16 billion acquisition of Immunex Corporation would reduce competition and tend to create a monopoly in the biopharmaceutical markets for neutrophil (white blood cell) regeneration factors; tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors; and interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibitors. The consent order requires the firms to sell all of Immunex's assets related to Leukine -a neutrophil regeneration factor -to Schering AG; license certain intellectual property rights to TNF inhibitors to Serono S.A.; and license certain intellectual property rights related to IL-1 inhibitors to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

A consent order permitted the $45 billion merger of Chevron and Texaco In., but required significant divestitures in the petroleum industry, including gasoline marketing assets, refining and bulk supply facilities, crude oil pipeline interests and terminaling facilities. Specifically, the Commission alleged that the proposed acquisition would likely substantially reduce competition in each of the following markets: 1) gasoline marketing in the western United States (in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming), the southern United States (in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia), in Alaska and Hawaii, and smaller local areas; 2) the marketing of California Air Resources Board (CARB) gasoline in California; 3) the refining and bulk supply of CARB gasoline for sale in California; 4) the refining and bulk supply of gasoline and jet fuel in the Pacific Northwest (Washington and Oregon, west of the Cascade mountains; 5) the bulk supply of Phase II Reformulated Gasoline (RFG II) in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri; 6) the terminaling of gasoline and other light petroleum products in Arizona (Phoenix and Tucson), California (San Diego and Ventura), Mississippi (Collins), and Texas (El Paso), and the Hawaiian islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu; 7) the pipeline transportation of crude oil from California's San Joaquin Valley; 8) the pipeline transportation of crude oil to shore from portions of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; 9) the pipeline transportation of offshore natural gas to shore from locations in the Central Gulf of Mexico; 10) the fractionation of raw mix into natural gas liquids products at Mont Belvieu, Texas; and 11) the marketing and distribution of aviation fuel to customers in the western and southeastern United States.

The Commission charged Biovail Corporation with illegally acquiring an exclusive patent license for Tiazac, a pharmaceutical used to treat high blood pressure and chronic chest pain. The complaint further alleged that Biovail, in an effort to maintain its monopoly, wrongfully listed the acquired license in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s “Orange Book” for the purpose of blocking generic competition to its branded Tiazac. The consent order requires Biovail to divest part of its exclusive rights to DOV; prohibits the firm from taking any action that would trigger additional statutory stays on final FDA approval of a generic form of Tiazac; and also prohibits Biovail from wrongfully listing any patents in the Orange Book for a product for which the company already has an New Drug Application from the FDA.

A consent order settled charges that FMC and Asahi Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. of Japan entered into a conspiracy to divide the world market for microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), a binder used in making pharmaceutical tablets, into two territories. According to the complaint, FMC allegedly agreed not to sell the pharmaceutical to customers in Japan or East Asia without Asahi Chemical's consent, while Asahi Chemical agreed not to sell the pharmaceutical to customers in North America or Europe without the consent of FMC. The final order prohibits such behavior in the future and restricts FMC from acting as the U.S. distributor for any competing manufacturer of microcrystalline cellulose (including Asahi Chemical) for 10 years. In addition, for five years, FMC is prohibited from distributing in the United States any other product manufactured by Asahi Chemical.