Tag: Nonmerger

Abbott and Geneva Pharmaceuticals settled charges that the two firms entered into an illegal agreement to stop the marketing and development of a competing generic drug. According to the complaint, Abbott, manufacturer of Hytrin – the brand name for terazosin HCL, a prescription drug used to treat hypertension and benign prostatic hyperplasia, entered into an agreement with Geneva Pharmaceuticals whereby Abbott would pay Geneva millions of dollars not to market a generic version of Hytrin. The orders bars Abbott and Geneva, among other things, from entering into agreements in which a generic company agrees with a manufacturer of a branded drug to delay or stop the production of a competing drug.

General surgeons and six competing general surgery practice groups in the Austin, Texas area settled charges that they collectively refused to deal with two health plans, forcing the plans to accept the surgeons’ demands to raise surgical rates.

The Wisconsin Chiropractic Association and its executive director, Russell A. Leonard, settled charges that they conspired to fix the prices for chiropractic goods and services and to boycott third party payers in an attempt to obtain higher reimbursement rates for services and contracts in the La Crosse, Wisconsin area.

McCormick & Company agreed to settle charges that it violated the Robinson-Patman Act when the firm charged some retailers higher net prices for its spice and seasoning products than it charged other retailers. According to the complaint, McCormick, the world’s largest spice company, offered its products to some retailers at substantial discounts using a variety of different discounting schemes, such as slotting allowances, free goods, off-invoice discounts and cash rebates. The order prohibits McCormick from engaging in price discrimination and from selling its products to any purchaser at a net price higher than McCormick charged the purchaser’s competitor.

A consent order prohibits fourteen Bakersfield, California pool construction contractors from entering into any agreement or conspiracy to substantially raise and set swimming pool construction prices. The order also prohibits the contractors from refusing to deal with owner-builders or home construction contractors or developers.

Physicians practicing in the North and South Lake Tahoe areas settled charges that they conspired to fix the prices and terms for professional services. The consent order prohibits the IPA from engaging in collective negotiations to fix prices; refusing to deal with third party payers; and coercing payers into accepting PA fee schedules and minimum reimbursement rates.

A Colorado physicians' organization settled charges alleging that the Mesa County IPA conspired with its members to increase prices for physician services and thereby prevented third party payers such as preferred provider organizations, health maintenance organizations, and employer health care purchasing cooperatives from offering alternative health insurance programs to consumers in Mesa County.

A pharmacy association in northern Puerto Rico and Ricardo Alvarez Class settled charges that they engaged in an illegal boycott in an attempt to obtain higher reimbursement rates for pharmacy goods and services under the government's managed care plan for the indigent. The consent order prohibits the members of the association and Mr. Class from engaging in joint negotiations for prices and from threatening to boycott or refusing to provide pharmacy services.

An association of marine pilots in Oregon agreed to settle charges that it monopolized and unreasonably restrained competition in the market for pilotage services on the Columbia River. The consent order prohibits Columbia River Pilots, a group of approximately 40 marine pilots licensed by the state of Oregon to provide navigational assistance to vessels on the Columbia River, from imposing unreasonable noncompete agreements on its members, allocating customers with any competing pilotage group, limiting any competing pilotage group's size, or restricting exclusive dealing contracts or rate proposals.

An association of 25 automobile dealerships settled charges that they agreed to boycott Chrysler if the manufacturer continued to allocate vehicles based on total sales. Competing dealers marketed vehicles offering lower prices on the Internet and were taking substantial sales from other dealers in the Northwest. The consent order prohibits the dealers from threatening to enter into any boycott or refusal to deal with any automobile manufacturer or consumer.