The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
20190865: Carlyle U.S. Equity Opportunity Fund II, L.P.; Cortec Group Fund V, L.P.
20190867: Gryphon Partners V, L.P.; LLR Equity Partners IV, L.P.
Social Finance, Inc. and Sofi Lending Corp., In the Matter of
In October 2018, the FTC announced that online student loan refinancer SoFi Lending Corp. (SoFi) agreed to stop misrepresenting how much money student loan borrowers have saved, or will save, by refinancing their loans with the company. The Commission approved the final consent in February 2019. In its administrative complaint, announced concurrently with the proposed settlement, the FTC alleged that since April 2016 SoFi made prominent false statements about loan refinancing savings in television, print, and Internet advertisements.
NutriMost LLC
The FTC is mailing 3,483 checks totaling more than $1.95 million to consumers who bought the NutriMost Ultimate Fat Loss System between October 1, 2012 and August 9, 2016, in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Each consumer will receive a refund of $560.54.
Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group, In the Matter of
Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group, which together own and operate five well-known U.S. supermarket chains, have agreed to sell 81 stores to settle charges that their proposed $28 billion merger would likely be anticompetitive in 46 local markets in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ahold operated 760 supermarkets under the Stop & Shop, Giant, and Martin’s banners in ten Eastern states and the District of Columbia.Delhaize operated 1,291 supermarkets under the Food Lion and Hannaford banners in 14 Eastern and Southern states. Under the proposed consent agreement, Ahold and Delhaize will divest a total of 81 stores to seven divestiture buyers.
20190797: Starboard Value and Opportunity Fund Ltd.; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
20190824: iAero Group Holdco LLC; New Swift Air Holdings, L.L.C.
20190827: Johnson & Johnson; MeiraGTx Holdings plc
Penn National Gaming and Pinnacle Entertainment, In the Matter of
The FTC required casino operators Penn National Gaming, Inc. and Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. to divest casino-related assets in three Midwestern cities to resolves charges that Penn’s $2.8 billion agreement to acquire Pinnacle likely would be anticompetitive. The complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would harm competition for casino services in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Casino services include gaming services such as slots and table games, as well as related lodging, entertainment, and food and beverage services, according to the complaint. Typically, casino operators generate the vast majority of their revenues from gaming. Casinos are highly regulated, with a limited number of licenses granted in any given state, as well as age restrictions on who can gamble. According to the complaint, the acquisition, if consummated, likely would eliminate direct competition between Penn and Pinnacle, increasing the likelihood that Penn would unilaterally exercise market power, and lead to higher prices and reduced quality for consumers of casino services.
20190775: Uniti Group Inc.; R. Otto Maly
20190796: Aurobindo Pharma Limited; Spectrum Pharamaceuticals, Inc.
20190799: Sumner Redstone; Pluto Inc.
A&O Enterprises, doing business as iV Bars, and Aaron K. Roberts, In the Matter of
Following a public comment period, the FTC has approved a final order settling charges against a Texas-based marketer and seller of intravenously injected therapy products (IV Cocktails) who allegedly made a range of deceptive and unsupported health claims about their ability to treat serious diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and congestive heart failure.
20190748: Novartis AG; Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Cephalon, Inc.
On 2/13/2008, the Commission filed a complaint in federal district court charging Cephalon, Inc. with preventing competition to its branded drug Provigil. The conduct under challenge includes paying four firms to refrain from selling generic versions of Provigil until 2012. Cephalon’s anticompetitive scheme, according to the Commission, denies patients access to lower-cost, generic versions of Provigil and forces consumers and other purchasers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year more for Provigil. According to the complaint, Cephalon entered into agreements with four generic drug manufacturers that each planned to sell a generic version of Provigil. Each of these companies had challenged the only remaining patent covering Provigil, one relating to the size of particles used in the product. The complaint charges that Cephalon was able to induce each of the generic companies to abandon its patent challenge and agree to refrain from selling a generic version of Provigil until 2012 by agreeing to pay the companies a total amount in excess of $200 million. In so doing, Cephalon achieved a result that assertion of its patent rights alone could not. In 2008, this case was transferred from the District Court of District of Columbia to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.