Skip to main content

Refine your results

Filters

Displaying 1021 - 1040 of 1531

Cases and Proceedings

Schering-Plough Corporation, In the Matter of

The Commission charged that Schering-Plough’s proposed $14.4 billion acquisition of Organon Biosciences N.V. threatened to substantially reduce competition in the U.S. market for three popular vaccines used to treat poultry, a staple in American food markets. The November 2007 order settling the charges required the sale of assets required to develop, manufacture, and market these vaccines to Wyeth. In addition, Schering-Plough was required to sign a supply and transition services agreement with Wyeth, under which Schering will provide the vaccines for a period of two years, allowing time for the necessary FDA approvals.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
071 0132
Cases and Proceedings

Kyphon, Inc., Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies Ltd. et al., In the Matter of

The Commission challenged Kyphon Inc.’s $220 million proposed acquisition of the spinal assets of Disc-O-Tech Medical Technologies, Ltd. and Discotech Orthopedic Technologies (collectively Disc-O-Tech) as anticompetitive in the market for minimally invasive vertebral compression fracture treatment products in the U.S. Disc-O-Tech’s Confidence products promised real benefits to patients in treating these painful fractures in a minimally invasive way, and threatened Kyphon’s near-monopoly on treatment options. The Commission’s consent order required that Kyphon divest all assets, intellectual property and development rights related to the Confidence brand to an FTC-approved buyer

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
071 0101
Cases and Proceedings

Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd.; Warner Chilcott Corporation; Warner Chilcott (US) Inc.; Galen (Chemicals) Ltd.; and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Commission settled with Barr Laboratories concluding its federal court action challenging an agreement between Warner Chilcott and Barr in which, the Commission alleged, Barr agreed not to sell a lower-priced generic substitute of Warner Chilcott’s branded Ovcon 35, an oral contraceptive drug, for several years for $20 million. On November 5, 2005 a complaint was filed in District Court for the District Columbia seeking to put an end to an agreement between drug manufacturers Galen Chemicals Ltd. (now known as Warner Chilcott) and Barr Laboratories that denies consumers the choice of a lower priced generic version of Warner Chilcott’s Ovcon® oral contraceptive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Barr planned to launch a generic version of Ovcon as soon it received regulatory approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Warner Chilcott expected to lose half its Ovcon sales within the first year if Ovcon faced competition from a generic equivalent. Faced with this prospect, instead of competing with Barr, Warner Chilcott entered into an agreement 24 with Barr, preventing entry of Barr’s generic Ovcon into the United States for five years. In exchange for Barr’s promise not to compete, Warner Chilcott paid Barr $20 million. In September 2006, under the threat of a preliminary injunction sought by the Commission, Warner Chilcott waived the exclusionary provision in its agreement, and the next day Barr announced its intention to start selling generic Ovcon in the United States. Under the terms of the October 2006 order settling the Commission’s charges, Warner Chilcott agreed to certain terms to protect generic entry into the market.
Type of Action
Federal
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0410034
Cases and Proceedings

Mylan Laboratories Inc. and E. Merck oHG., In the Matter of

The Commission ordered divestitures to resolve competitive concerns in the U.S. market for five generic drugs stemming from Mylan Laboratories’ proposed acquisition of the generic arm of Merck Pharmaceuticals, a transaction valued at approximately $6.6 billion. Under a September 2007 consent order with the Commission, Mylan and Merck must divest all assets relating to flecainide acetate tablets, acebutolol hydrochloride capsules, guanfacine hydrochloride tablets, nicardipine hydrochloride capsules, and sotalol hydrochloride. The generic drugs at issue are used for the treatment of many conditions, including hypertension and heart arrhythmia. The order requires the divestiture of all assets related to the relevant products to Amneal Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug manufacturer.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0710164
Cases and Proceedings

American Renal Associates, Inc., a corporation, and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., a corporation

The Commission settled charges stemming from American Renal Associates’ (ARA) proposed acquisition of assets from Fresenius AG, which would have made ARA the only operator of dialysis clinics in the Warwick/Cranston area of Rhode Island. The purchase agreement called for the sale of five Fresenius clinics to ARA, including two in the Warwick/Cranston area, and the closure of an additional three Fresenius clinics in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The parties terminated their purchase agreement after FTC staff raised antitrust concerns, but the Commission challenged the closure of the three clinics as a naked agreement to pay a competitor to exit the market, and also alleged a Section 7 violation in the Warwick/ Cranston market for dialysis services. The Commission’s order bars the parties from entering into any agreement to close dialysis clinics, and requires ARA to notify the Commission if it intends to acquire any dialysis centers in the Warwick/Cranston area for a period of 10 years.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0510234
Cases and Proceedings

Rite Aid Corporation and The Jean Coutu Group (PJC), Inc., In the Matter of

The Commission charged that Rite Aid Corporation’s $3.5 billion acquisition of competitors Brooks and Eckerd Pharmacies from the Canadian drug store operator Jean Coutu Group, Inc. was anticompetitive and required the sale of retail pharmacies located in 23 cities along the East Coast. According to the Commission’s complaint, the merger would have substantially reduced competition in the sale of pharmacy services to customers in those areas, where customers view stores operated by the two companies as their two best options. The consent order requires Rite Aid to divest pharmacies in those cities to buyers preapproved by the Commission. The investigation, which included cooperation from the state attorneys general of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Maine, was handled by the agency’s Northeast Regional Office.
Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0610257
Docket Number
C-4191
Cases and Proceedings

Colegio de Optometras, Edgar Davila Garcia, O.D., and Carlos Rivera Alonso, O.D., In the Matter of

The Commission charged a group of optometrists in Puerto Rico with violating the FTC Act by orchestrating agreements among members of the Colegio de Optometras to refuse, or threaten to refuse, to accept vision and health care contracts except on collectively agreed-upon terms. Two leaders of the group were also charged with facilitating the agreement by urging members not to participate in the vision network. The Commission’s consent order settling these charges bars the group and the two leaders from engaging in such conduct, while allowing them to undertake certain kinds of joint contracting arrangements by which physician participants control costs and improve quality by managing the provision of services. FTC staff worked with the Office of Monopolistic Affairs of Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice on this case.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
051 0044
Cases and Proceedings
Adjudicative Proceedings

South Carolina State Board of Dentistry, In the Matter of

The Commission settled a September 15 2003 administrative complaint charging the South Carolina State Board of Dentistry with unlawfully restraining competition by enacting a rule that required a dentist to examine every child before a dental hygienist could provide preventive dental care – such as cleanings – in schools. The Board, which is a state regulatory agency composed primarily of practicing dentists, claimed that its actions were immune from antitrust challenge under the state action doctrine, but that argument was rejected in a 2004 Commission opinion holding that the Board’s conduct was directly contrary to state law. In 2006, the court of appeals dismissed the Board’s interlocutory petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in January 2007. The FTC’s 2007 consent requires the Board to publicly support the current state public health program that allows hygienists to provide preventive dental care to schoolchildren, especially those from low-income families.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
0210128
Docket Number
9311

Displaying 1021 - 1040 of 1531

Return to top