In the Matter of the Idaho Attorney General’s Investigation of Kootenai Hospital District et al
Idaho resolved an investigation into two health care providers in Idaho County, Kootenai Health and Syringa, through a consent decree. Idaho found that in 2017, Kootenai Health and Syringa entered into a management agreement where Kootenai Health hired and paid Syringa’s Chief Executive Officer, making the CEO an employee of Kootenai Health. This agreement provided…
United States and Plaintiff States v. American Airlines et al. (D. Mass. 1:21-cv-11558)
Seven states and the U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit alleging that a joint venture between American Airlines and JetBlue, the Northeast Alliance, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiff states and DOJ alleged that the defendants combined their operations at four airports, eliminating competition between them on routes involving those airports…
United States and Plaintiff States v. UnitedHealth et al. (D. Md. 1:24-cv-03267-JKB)
Four states and the U.S. Department of Justice brought a lawsuit seeking to block the acquisition of Amedysis, Inc. by UnitedHealth Group, Inc. The plaintiff states and DOJ alleged that the defendants are two of the largest home health and hospice service providers in the country and that their merger would eliminate competition between the…
Washington v. Kroger et al.
Washington filed suit in King County Superior Court to block the merger of Kroger and Albertsons, which would have combined the two largest supermarket chains operating in the state. Washington alleged that the merger would have ended head-to-head competition between the chains on price, loyalty rewards programs, products offered and customer service, leading to higher…
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Nexstar Media Group et al., No. 19-02295 (D.D.C. 08/01/19)
Nexstar agreed to acquire Tribune Media Company for approximately $6.4 billion. USDOJ and plaintiff states sued, alleging that the merger would likely substantially lessen competition in thirteen Designated Market Areas (DMAs). MVPDs, such as Comcast, DirecTV, and Charter, typically pay the owner of local broadcast stations in a given DMA a per-subscriber fee for the…
U.S. et al. v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 1:23-cv-10511 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2023)
The U.S. Department of Justice and seven states sued to block JetBlue’s takeover of Spirit Airlines, alleging that the deal would lessen competition and potentially increase costs and decrease reliability for passengers. According to the complaint, Spirit is a budget airline whose presence in a city pair may cause other airlines to lower their prices. …
FTC et al. v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, No. 1:20-cv-00706 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2020)
The FTC, New York and six other states filed suit against Vyera Pharmaceuticals, its parent company, Phoenixus, and its former officers, Kevin Mulleady and Martin Shkreli in 2020, alleging anticompetitive conduct in connection with Daraprim, the only FDA approved drug for the treatment of the life-threatening parasitic disease toxoplasmosis. The suit alleged that Vyera purchased…
People of the State of New York v. Actavis, PLC et al., No. 14-CV-7473 (RWS)(S.D.N.Y filed Dec. 10, 2014)
Plaintiff state sued pharmaceutical manufacturer Actavis plc and its New-York based subsidiary Forest Laboratories seeking an injunction to prevent them from withdrawing the Alzheimer’s drug Namenda from the market and switching patients to a once daily version, Namenda XR. Namenda’s patent will expire in July 2015 and the company thereafter faces competition from generic drug makers. According to the complaint, Actavis planned to force patients to switch unnecessarily to Namenda XR because it had a longer patent. Once patients switch to Namenda XR, it would be difficult for patients to switch drugs again once generics become available. Normally, state substitution laws allow pharmacists to dispense generics without being forced to obtain physician approval. According to the complaint, even though Namenda and Namenda XR have the same active ingredient, pharmacists will not be allowed to offer generic Namenda to patients taking Namenda XR; a doctor’s approval would be required to make that switch. This means that most Alzheimer’s patients and their families will remain on Namenda XR. The lawsuit alleges that, by forcing patients to switch to Namenda XR, Actavis is gaming the regulatory system that governs pharmaceuticals and violating antitrust laws designed to encourage competition and keep prices down for consumers. In December 2014, the district court enjoined Actavis from ceasing production of Namenda, and the injunction was affirmed by the Second Circuit in May 2015.
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
