Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

The FTC alleges that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.

Akorn Enterprises, Inc. and Hi-Tech Pharmacal, Inc. agreed to sell the rights and assets to three generic prescription eye medications and two generic topical anesthetics to Watson Laboratories, Inc., to settle FTC charges that Akorn’s proposed $640 million acquisition of Hi-Tech would be anticompetitive and lead to higher prices for consumers. The proposed order requires the parties to sell either Akorn’s or Hi-Tech’s rights and assets to each of the five drug products to Watson, and requires Akorn to assign Watson its contract for making branded and generic EMLA cream within 10 days after the deal is consummated. In addition, the companies must maintain the drugs to be sold as viable, marketable, and competitive pending their divestiture, and must allow the FTC to appoint a monitor to ensure that the companies comply with the order’s requirements.