Tag: Competition

A network of doctors, hospitals, and its executive director, William R. Diggins, settled charges that they illegally engaged in price-fixing activities that raised health care costs in five Maine counties by negotiating jointly with third-party payers in a effort to obtain higher compensation and more advantageous contract terms for its members.

Consent order requires divestiture of Baxter's Autoplex product line of Factor VIII inhibitors used in the treatment for hemophilia and the licensing of Immuno International AG's fibrin sealant, a biologic product in development to be used to control bleeding in surgical procedures. According to the complaint issued with the final order, the acquisition of Immuno International would tend to create a monopoly and increase Baxter's ability to unilaterally raise prices in the market for the research, manufacture and sale of biologic products derived from human blood plasma.

The Commission issued an administrative complaint against Warner Communications, Inc., and several subsidiaries of Vivendi Universal S.A., charging them with illegally agreeing to fix prices for audio and video products featuring The Three Tenors.  A settlement with Warner barred future agreements to fix prices or restrict advertising.  After an administrative trial against Vivendi, an ALJ found that the agreement, while made in association with an otherwise legal joint venture between the companies, violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by illegally reducing competition in the U.S. market for the audio and video products cited.  The Commission upheld the ruling of an administrative law judge and prohibited PolyGram from entering into any agreement with competitors to fix the prices or restrict the advertising of products they have produced independently. In July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the Commission’s decision in Polygram Holding Inc., validating the Commission’s approach to analyzing horizontal conduct among competitors.

A physician group in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area settled charges that it collectively bargained on behalf of its members to negotiate fee schedules with third party payers and other health insurance companies. According to the complaint, issued with the consent order, these practices decreased competition and increased prices for the provision of medical services to area consumers.

Shell Oil Company was allowed to complete its $1.8 billion acquisition of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company but required to divest certain assets to maintain healthy competition in the refining and marketing of Group II paraffinic base oil in the United States and Canada. Under terms of the consent order, Ski1 and Pennzoil must divest its 50 percent interest in Excel Paralubes (a base oil refinery in Westlake, Louisiana) and freeze Pennzoil's right to obtain additional Group II supply under a contract with ExxonMobil at approximately current levels (up to 6,500 barrels of base oil per day)

Southern Union Company settled antitrust concerns stemming from its proposed acquisition of the Panhandle pipeline from CMS Energy Corporation. The consent order permitted the acquisition but required Southern Union to terminate an agreement to manage the Central pipeline which transports natural gas to several counties in Missouri and Kansas.

A New Mexico physician organization settled charges that it and its members entered into agreements to fix prices and to refuse to deal with third party payers and other health care plans except on collectively agreed-upon terms.