In re North Shore Health System and Long Island Jewish Hospital
State and two hospitals agreed that the merged hospitals would, for a period of five years, pass on $100 million of cost savings to consumers, in the form of new or incremental services, including early detection and screening, increasing services to underserved populations, improvements of health care delivery. the hospitals also agreed to freeze hospital list prices for both inpatient and outpatient services for two years. Annual reports are to be submitted to the attorney general.
United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013)
United States and Texas challenged $220 million acquisition by Cinemark of Rave Holdings. Cinemark is the third-biggest movie chain in the U.S., with 298 theaters in 39 states. Rave Holdings owns 35 theaters in 12 states and specializes in digital and 3-D presentations, According to the complaint, the proposed acquisition would reduce competition in the Voorhees-Somerdale area of New Jersey and the eastern section of Louisville, where Cinemark and Rave are each other’s chief competitors. Cinemark and Rave operate theaters in the western region of Fort Worth. In addition, if the acquisition were to go through as originally planned, the theaters would be less likely to improve or maintain the quality of their sound systems, screens, and food and drinks. Cinemark agreed to divest Movie Tavern Inc. — a Dallas company operating 16 theaters in Fort Worth and Denton, Texas — and three additional Texas theaters to settle the suit.
Florida v. NSK Ltd.
State alleged price-fixing in the market for automotive ball bearings, including bearings used throughout the automobile, from 2000 to the present. The defendants control 75 percent of the market, and entry is not easy. Several of the defendants entered guilty pleas to criminal charges brought by USDOJ.
Investigation Concerning an Agreement Between Competing Pharmaceutical companies to Not challenge Each Other’s sole first to file Exculsivity, Assurance No. 14-034 (Feb. 19, 2014)
State challenged an agreement between two generic pharmaceutical makers under which they agreed not to challenge the exclusivity of any of the other party’s pharmaceuticals (pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act). The parties agreed to drop that provision and not enter into a similar provision with other generic manufacturers
District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.,
The District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and its gasoline distributors for Washington, D.C., to stop enforcement of exclusive‐supply agreements that make one group of affiliated distributors the only suppliers of Exxon‐branded gasoline in D.C. The complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court, alleges that the exclusive‐supply agreements violate the District’s Retail Service Station Act. The affiliated distributors – Capitol Petroleum Group, LLC, Anacostia Realty, LLC, and Springfield Petroleum Realty, LLC – are the exclusive gasoline suppliers for about 60% of the 107 gasoline stations in D.C., including all 31 Exxon stations, 19 of 20 Shell stations, all 12 Valero stations, and 3 unbranded stations. The District’s lawsuit challenges agreements that make these affiliated distributors the exclusive suppliers of Exxon‐branded gasoline for the 27 independently‐operated Exxon stations in D.C., or about 25% of the gasoline stations in the city. The exclusive‐supply agreements, or earlier versions of them, were established by ExxonMobil and were transferred in 2009 to the affiliated distributors, along with ExxonMobil’s ownership of the 30 D.C. Exxon stations to which the agreements then pertained. According to the District’s complaint, these supply agreements can now be enforced either by the affiliated distributors or by ExxonMobil through its separate agreements with other area distributors.
The District alleges that the exclusive‐supply agreements allow the affiliated distributors to “set the wholesale prices paid for Exxon‐branded gasoline in D.C., depriving D.C. residents . . . of the benefits of competition in the wholesale supply of Exxon‐branded gasoline.”
Utah v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc., No. 2:99-CV00303H
Plaintiff state entered into a consent decree with Allied to ensure that Allied did not use its control of the Washington County landfill to disadvantage competitors. Allied agreed to treat all haulers the same with respect to storage of waste containers, hauling outside normal business hours, inclusion of banned hazardous waste in waste hauled to the landfill. Allied also will not tie the sale of any other services (e.g. recycling) or products to the purchase of commercial waste services from Allied. Allied will not enter into any contracts for a term of more than 2 years, and there shall be no automatic renewal (evergreen) contracts for longer than one year.Allied may not provide any commercial waste-hauling services below cost so long as it has more thatn 60% of commercial small container waste hauling in Washingotn County.
Investigation by Attorney General of the State of New York, of the Proposed Combination of Seamless North America, LLC and GruHub Inc.
Seamless and GrubHub are two services that allow consumers to search for local restaurants, browse menus, and order food for delivery or takeout via their respective websites or mobile applications. The two proposed to merge. The Attorney General was concerned that exclusivity provisions in their contracts would impede entry of other competitors in the online food ordering platform market in Manhattan. In an Assurance of Discontinuance, the companies agreed to waive their exclusivity provisions, not enter into any new exclusivity arrangements with restaurants for 18 months, nor provide any incentives for exclusivity. The companies also agreed not to enter into any exclusive arrangement with the online review site Yelp for a period fo 18 months.
Connecticut v. H.I. Stone & Son, Inc., Ct. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. Oct. 22.2014
Plaintiff state alleged that the town of Southbury in October 2011 decided to put its snow removal contract out to bid, rather than offering it to the defendants without competition. According to the complaint, the defendants colluded and jointly refused to deal with the town and plow for the fast approaching nor’easter unless they were given a guaranteed minimum contract for a larger portion of that winter season. In the face of this threat, and with the impending storm posing a potential threat to public safety, the town agreed. The town later put out a bid for the remainder of its snow removal work for the 2011-to-2012 winter season. According to the complaint, the defendants again colluded and entered into a conspiracy with one another designed to eliminate competition among them and substantially raise the prices they received for snowplowing services from the town. Under the settlement agreement, the three corporate defendants will pay the state $30,000 each in civil penalties. The three companies will also provide the town of Southbury with snow removal services at the original rate prior to the conspiracy for a period of three years that will be applied retroactively beginning with the 2013-2014 winter season. In addition to paying civil penalties and providing reduced-rate services to the town of Southbury, each company will establish an antitrust and competition training program that will be provided to the Office of Attorney General for its review on an annual basis.
Florida et al. v. Service Corporation International, No. A13CV1082LY (W.D. Texas Jan. 2, 2014)
SCI, the nation’s largest funeral home chain, sought to acquire Stewart Enterprises, another large funeral home chain. Seven states and the FTC entered into consent agreements with SCI specifying which funeral homes would be divested in 59 separate markets. In a separate consent agreement, SCI agreed to provide the state plaintiffs with the same notices, requirements for approval and compliance review as to divestitures and future acquisitions included in the FTC’s consent decree and to pay the state’s costs and attorneys’ fees..