The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
20161531: Brookfield Capital Partners Fund III LP; Energy Future Holdings Corp.
20161532: North Haven Infrastructure Partners II AIV-I L.P.; Randall Broda
20161536: AP VIII Aspen Holdings, L.P.; Outerwall Inc.
20161540: AF IV Energy AIV B1, L.P.; Clayton Williams Energy, Inc.
20161551: Refresco Group N.V.; The Jerry Whitlock Living Trust
Very Incognito Technologies, In the Matter of
Victrex plc, et al., In the Matter of
Invibio agreed to settle charges that it used long-term supply contracts to exclude rivals and maintain its monopoly in implant-grade polyetheretherketone, known as PEEK, which is sold to medical device makers. The FTC’s complaint alleges that two other companies,Solvay Specialty Polymers LLC and Evonik Corporation, later entered the implant-grade PEEK market, but Invibio’s anticompetitive tactics impeded them from effectively competing for customers. Through these exclusive contracting practices, the complaint alleges that Invibio has been able to maintain high prices for PEEK, despite entry from Solvay and Evonik; to prevent its customers from using more than one source of supply, despite their business preference to do so; and to impede Solvay and Evonik from developing into fully effective competitors. Under the consent order, Invibio, Inc. and Invibio Limited, along with their corporate parent, Victrex plc, are generally prohibited from entering into exclusive supply contracts and from preventing current customers from using an alternate source of PEEK in new products. In addition, the companies must allow current customers meeting certain conditions to modify existing contracts to eliminate the requirement that the customer purchase PEEK for existing products exclusively from Invibio.
Koninklijke Ahold N.V. and Delhaize Group NV/SA; Analysis to Aid Public Comment
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Allergan plc; Analysis to Aid Public Comment
Very Incognito Technologies, Inc., Doing Business as Vipvape; Analysis to Aid Public Comment
Victrex, plc; Invibio, Limited; and Invibio, Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment and Statement of the Commission
Opinion 16-2
1608001 Informal Interpretation
20161240: International Paper Company; Weyerhaeuser Company
20161371: Chamly Aspen Trust; Axiall Corporation
20161511: ISQ Global Infrastructure Fund, L.P.; Alcoa Inc.
Superior/Canexus, In the Matter of
The FTC filed an administrative complaint charging that the proposed $982 million merger of Canadian chemical suppliers Superior Plus Corp. and Canexus Corp. would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition in the North American market for sodium chlorate – a commodity chemical used to bleach wood pulp that is then processed into paper, tissue, diaper liners, and other products. Superior and Canexus are two of the three major producers of sodium chlorate in North America. If the merger takes place, the new company and rival AkzoNobel will control approximately 80 percent of the total sodium chlorate production capacity in North America. By combining more than half of all North American sodium chlorate production capacity in the merged Superior and Canexus, the acquisition is likely to lead to anticompetitive reductions in output and higher prices, the complaint alleges. Additionally, by removing Canexus as an independent sodium chlorate producer, with its large scale and low-costs, the acquisition will also increase the likelihood of coordination in an already vulnerable market, according to the complaint. The FTC also authorized staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in federal court to prevent the parties from consummating the merger and to maintain the status quo pending the administrative proceeding. The FTC and the Canadian Competition Bureau collaborated in this investigation. On June 30, the parties abandoned their plans.