Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriquez, No. 02-2778 (D.P.R.) and Estado Libre Asociado v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 02-2847 (P.R. Ct. First Instance) (Feb. 28, 2003)
Puerto Rico challenged acquisition by Wal-Mart of supermarket chain in Puerto Rico. After the enforcement action was enjoined by the U.S. District Court, Puerto Rico appealed. Twenty states filed an amicus brief supporting Puerto Rico’s ability to challenge the transaction regardless of the actions of the FTC. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a settlement under which Wal-Mart would divest four supermarkets.
Massachusetts v. J. Sainsbury, PLC, No. 99-2574A (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk Cty. Nov. 16, 2000)
State challenged the acquisition by J. Sainsbury of Star Markets supermarkets in Massachusetts. Defendant was required to divest 9 supermarkets, keep operating two others until a competitor opens up, and provide notice of future acquisitions. Consent decree was later modified to require only 8 divestitures.
FTC and State of Ohio v. Promedica health System, No. 3:11CV0047 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2011)
State and FTC sought preliminary injunction in connection with an already consummated acquisition by Promedica of St. Luke’s hospital. The complaint alleged that ProMedica’s acquisition of St. Luke’s eliminated significant price and non-price competition between the two firms in both the general acute-care and inpatient obstetrical markets in Lucas County. According to the complaint, the acquisition also vests ProMedica with the ability to demand higher rates for services performed at its other hospitals as well, because the addition of St. Luke’s to the ProMedica hospital system has made ProMedica a “must-have” system for health plans seeking to do business in Lucas County, as plans can no longer offer consumers a viable provider network without including ProMedica’s hospitals. The preliminary injunction was granted, and the FTC proceeded with an administrative proceeding.
FTC and State of Idaho v. St. Luke’s Health System, No. 1:13-CV-00116-BLW (Jan. 24, 2014, D. Idaho)
The FTC and the Attorney General of Idaho filed suit to prevent the acquisition by St. Luke’s Health System of Idaho’s largest independent, multi-specialty physician practice group, Saltzer Medical Group. According to the joint complaint , the combination of St. Luke’s and Saltzer would give it the market power to demand higher rates for health care services provided by primary care physicians (PCPs) in Nampa, Idaho and surrounding areas, ultimately leading to higher costs for health care consumers. According to the joint complaint, St. Luke’s acquisition of Saltzer was anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 48-106 of the Idaho Competition Act. It created a single dominant provider of adult primary care physician (adult PCP) services in Nampa, with the combined entity commanding nearly a 60 percent share of that market. In addition, an alternative network of health care providers that does not include St. Luke’s/Saltzer’s primary care physicians becomes far less attractive for employers with employees living in Nampa. The FTC and Idaho Attorney General allege that the newly combined primary care practices will give St. Luke’s greater bargaining leverage with health care plans, with higher prices for services eventually passed on to local employers and their employees. The parties consummated their transaction several months earlier, and a private antitrust complaint was filed by several competitors. Idaho and the FTC consolidated their suits for trial. The court held that the transaction was anticompetitive and that the acquisition should be unwound. The decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit
State of Nevada v. Renown Health, No. 3:12-cv-409 (D. Nev. Aug. 6, 2012)
Renown Health acquired the largest two cardiology practices in the Reno Nevada area, leaving it with 88 percent of the cardiologists in the geographic market. The settlement required Renown Health to suspend its non-compete agreements with the cardiologists until at least six cardiologists have terminated their employment by Renown. Renown will provide the Attorney General with advance notice of future acquisitions, implement a compliance program, and pay $550,000 to the AG office for fees and costs. The FTC had a parallel proceeding with similar relief.
Alaska v. Hilcorp Alaska et al.,No. 3An12-____ (Ak. Super. Ct. 3d Jud. Dist. Nov. 7, 2012)
Hilcorp Alaska LLC’s proposed to acquire Marathon Oil Company’s Cook Inlet, Alaska natural gas production, storage and pipeline assets for $375 million. Both the FTC and the state of Alaska expressed concerns about the acquisition because Marathon and Hilcorp are two of the three primary competitors for sales of natural gas in south-central Alaska, and account for over 90 percent of the natural gas produced in Cook Inlet and the acquisition would harm competition by diminishing the negotiating strength of the area’s primary purchasers, local utilities and industrial users. On the other hand, the acquisition could also alleviate concerns regarding local energy supply shortages. Existing fields in Cook Inlet are declining in production, and local utility demand is expected to exceed annual production within a few years. Because of this, the state has been actively working to encourage new investment in exploration and production in the Cook Inlet. The Alaska Attorney General entered into a consent decree with Hilcorp, which included (1) price caps on natural gas sold to local utilities and industrial users for the next five years; (2) a prohibition on selling Cook Inlet natural gas for liquefied natural gas export for five years; and (3) it will not knowingly sell Cook Inlet natural gas to other companies who intend to resell the gas for LNG export. The FTC decided to end its investigation as a result of the Alaska Attorney General’s action, in light of the concerns about energy scarcity in the future and the fact that only consumers in Alaska would be affected.
Federal Trade Commission and State of Georgia v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.,No. 1:11-cv-00058-WLS (M.D. Ga. Apr. 20, 2011)
Georgia Attorney General’s Office filed a joint complaint with the FTC seeking to enjoin any transaction involving Phoebe Putney, the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County or Palmyra Park Hospital under which Phoebe Putney would acquire control of Palmyra Park Hospital’s operations, until the conclusion of the FTC’s administrative proceeding and any subsequent appeals.
The complaint alleges that the transaction as proposed would violate federal law by eliminating the vigorous competition that currently exists between Phoebe Putney and Palmyra Park Hospital in Albany and the surrounding six-county area. The complaint also alleges that Phoebe Putney has used the Hospital Authority to cloak private, anticompetitive activity in governmental guise in the hopes that it would exempt the acquisition from federal antitrust law. Court granted TRO, case filed under seal.
State of Nevada v. Universal Health Services, Inc., Alan B. Miller, and Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-01984 (D.Nev. 2010)
Sate and FTC reached settlement requiring divestitures of several acute-care inpatient psychiatric hospitals in the Las Vegas area.
Connecticut v. K&S Aktiongesellschaft (Ct.Super.Ct. Oct. 13, 2009)
In state action parallel to FTC action, Connecticut settled with parties to a merger of salt producers who had both had contracts with the state DOT for road deicing. Road deicing assets were divested to a regional company in order to preserve competition for Connecticut road de-icing contracts. The merging parties were required to provide up to 120,000 tons of de-icing salt for three years.
New York by Cuomo v. Intel Corporation, No. 09-827(JJF) (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2009)
State of New York filed a federal antitrust suit against Intel Corporation charging that Intel engaged in a worldwide, systematic campaign of illegal conduct – revealed in e-mails – in order to maintain its monopoly power and prices in the market for microprocessors. The complaint alleged that over the last several years, Intel has extracted exclusive agreements from large computer makers in which they agreed to use Intel’s microprocessors in exchange for payments totaling billions of dollars. Intel also threatened to and did in fact punish computer makers that they perceived to be working too closely with Intel’s competitors. Retaliatory threats included cutting off payments the computer maker was receiving from Intel, directly funding a computer maker’s competitors, and ending joint development ventures. According to the complaint, to obtain exclusive agreements, Intel paid hundreds of millions of dollars annually in so-called “rebates†to individual computer makers. These rebates were actually just payoffs with no legitimate business purpose that Intel invented to disguise their anticompetitive nature. Sometimes, the payments from Intel exceeded a company’s reported quarterly net income. Intel’s pressure on computer makers to guarantee it specified market shares of their sales prevented computer makers from responding to consumer demand. The state sought to bar further anticompetitive acts by Intel, restore lost competition, recover monetary damages suffered by New York governmental entities and consumers, and collect penalties. Intel’s various motions to dismiss were granted, greatly reducing the scope of the state’s case. The parties settled in 2012. New York dismissed the action with prejudice and agreed to terminate its investigation. Intel did not admit wrongdoing and did not change its business practices, but agreed to pay $6.7 million in costs.
