Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC allowed the $16 billion merger of El Paso Energy Corporation and the Coastal Corporation after requiring the companies to divest their interests in 11 natural gas pipeline systems totaling more than 2,500 miles of pipe. The agreement provides for the divestiture of the proposed Gulfstream pipeline in Florida to a new purchaser - restoring competition to pre-merger levels and assuring future competition for natural gas transportation into the state. The agreement also provides for divestiture of El Paso and Coastal interests in existing natural gas pipelines serving customers in New York State and the Midwest. In addition, it would restore competition in the Gulf of Mexico by requiring the divestiture of seven pipelines and establishing a development fund for the purchaser of El Paso's Green Canyon and Tarpon pipelines to cover the costs of extending these pipelines to specified areas in the Gulf where El Paso and Coastal pipelines are significant competitors. Under the FTC’s Order, El Paso Energy divested certain pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico to Williams Field Services and established a $40 million development fund for Williams to use to build a pipeline or related facility. The Commission later modified its order to remove the requirement that El Paso maintain the development fund.

To settle FTC charges that its proposed acquisition of Alcon, Inc., would be anticompetitive, Novartis AG agreed to sell an injectable eye care drug used in cataract surgery. Novartis and Alcon are the only two U.S. providers of the class of drugs known as injectable miotics, and the FTC alleges that the acquisition would have created a monopoly in injectable miotics. The settlement requires Novartis to sell its drug Miochol-E to Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

The Commission required that carbonated soft drink company PepsiCo, Inc. restrict its access to confidential business competitive information of rival Dr Pepper Snapple Group as a condition for proceeding with PepsiCo’s proposed $7.8 billion acquisition of its two largest bottlers and distributors, which also distribute Dr Pepper Snapple Group carbonated soft drinks.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint on 5/7/2010 challenging The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation February 2009 acquisition of Quality Education Data (QED) and alleging that the deal hurt consumers by eliminating nearly all competition in the market for kindergarten through twelfth-grade educational marketing databases. The data sold by these companies is used to sell books, education materials, and other products to teachers and other educators nationwide. The combination of the two companies gave Dun & Bradstreet, through its subsidiary Market Data Retrieval (MDR), more than 90 percent of the market for K-12 educational marketing data. Dun & Bradstreet acquired QED from Scholastic, Inc. for about $29 million, which was below the threshold amount that would have required the companies to notify U.S. antitrust authorities before finalizing the deal.

Australian chemical company Nufarm Limited agreed to sell certain assets and modify some of its business agreements to settle charges that its 2008 acquisition of rival A.H. Marks Holding Limited hurt competition in the U.S. market for three herbicides that are relied upon by farmers, landscapers, and consumers. Under the settlement, Nufarm will sell rights and assets associated with two of the herbicides to competitors and will modify agreements with two other companies to allow them to fully compete in the market for the other herbicide. Nufarm’s acquisition of United Kingdom-based A.H. Marks gave Nufarm monopolies in the U.S. markets for two herbicides called MCPA and MCPP-P, which also are known as phenoxy herbicides. The transaction also left only two competitors in the market for a third phenoxy herbicide, called 2,4DB. The three herbicides are widely used in the turf, lawn care, and agriculture industries to eliminate certain weeds safely and cheaply.