Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
Así es como usted puede verificarlo
El .gov significa que es oficial.
Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
Este sitio es seguro.
El https:// medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.
Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings
Every year the FTC brings hundreds of cases against individuals and companies for violating consumer protection and competition laws that the agency enforces. These cases can involve fraud, scams, identity theft, false advertising, privacy violations, anti-competitive behavior and more. The Legal Library has detailed information about cases we have brought in federal court or through our internal administrative process, called an adjudicative proceeding.
A final consent order permits Pfizer Inc.'s acquisition of Phamacia Corporation while requiring the divestiture of various products including extended release drugs used in the treatment of an overactive bladder; hormone replacement therapies; erectile dysfunction; canine arthritis; and motion sickness. Novartis AG, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Schering-Plough Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Insight Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Cadbury Schweppes are named in the order as potential buyers of the various pharmaceuticals and products.
The consent order requires FMC to divest its phosphorus pentasulfide business in Lawrence, Kansas to Peak Investments, LLC and Solutia Inc.’s phosphate assets in Augusta, Georgia to Societe Chemique Prayon-Rupel to settle charges that the proposed FMC/Solutia joint venture could substantially lessen competition in the United States market for pure phosphoric acid and phosphorus pentasulfide.
The corporation that represents household goods movers in Indiana settled charges that it filed collective intrastate rate tariffs with the State’s Department of Revenue on behalf of its members. According to the complaint issued with the consent order, these collective filings reduced competition for household goods moving services within the state, and the conduct was not protected by the state action doctrine because it was not actively supervised by the state.
