Antitrust

On December 12, 2019, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice filed an antitrust case and simultaneous settlement against the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC).  The complaint alleged that NACAC established and enforced illegal restraints on the ways that colleges compete in the recruiting of students.

Read about Third Point and three funds’ agreement to pay $609,810 to settle HSR Act antitrust allegations related to their delayed reporting of securities acquired due to the merger of third parties.

Read about Canon Inc. and Toshiba Corporation’s agreement to pay $2.5 million each to settle DOJ antitrust allegations associated with a $6.1 billion transaction.

This alert discusses State of Washington v. Franciscan Health System, outlines its proposed settlement, and reviews the important takeaways for health care provider affiliations.

Just when observers thought Qualcomm could celebrate its successful litigation with Apple another decision has come down which could have major implications for Qualcomm’s business going forward.

Read about the Sixth Circuit's rejection of a hospital plaintiff’s per se antitrust claim against a dominant competitor in The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health System.

Bruce Sokler discusses the consent decree that resolved the Department of Justice’s attack against Atrium Health in which the DOJ challenged Atrium’s use of anti-steering provisions in their contracts with insurers.

Rob Kidwell provides an overview of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the recent amendments to the statute governing the committee as well as how these changes impact business transactions.

This alert from the Mintz health care antitrust team outlines the reasoning behind a California court’s March 14, 2019 decision against Sutter Health — a case involving claims of alleged price tampering and combination to monopolize.

This antitrust alert highlights two filings made by the DOJ last week in cases pending in federal district courts in North Carolina and Washington.

Read about the FTC’s new “size of transaction” and “size of person” thresholds requiring reporting under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976.

Read about FTC commissioners’ divergent views on vertical mergers detailed in statements filed with a proposed consent order regarding Staples’ acquisition of Essendant.

Read about the 11th Circuit's denial of Blue Cross Blue Shield’s appeal of a ruling that its allegedly restrictive practices must be analyzed under the per se standard.

This alert reviews the DOJ’s Competitive Impact Statement on the Atrium case, which suggests that providers including anticompetitive steering restrictions in payor contracts may face antitrust risks.

Read about a DOJ Antitrust Division proposed settlement that would bar Atrium Health from using anticompetitive steering restrictions in payor contracts.

This antitrust alert outlines an FTC settlement designed to reduce anticompetitive effects resulting from the merger of gas suppliers Praxair, Inc. and Linde AG.

Read about a US District Court’s denial of Landmark Theaters’ dismissal motion in an exclusive dealing Sherman Act antitrust case brought by independent movie theaters.

In September 25, 2018 remarks at the 2018 Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim announced the Department of Justice’s plan to modernize and expedite the DOJ merger review process. This article outlines the changes to the merger review process, which the DOJ now plans to complete within six months of the parties’ Hart-Scott-Rodino filings.

The Third Circuit reinstated an antitrust suit brought by a medical device seller that alleged Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and five of its member insurance plan administrators shut out the seller by conspiring to deny coverage for its device. LifeWatch Services Inc. v. Highmark Inc. et al., Case No. 17-1990 (3rd Cir. Aug. 28, 2018). Critical to the Third Circuit’s reversal of the lower court’s dismissal of the suit was market definition. In this buyer-side conspiracy case, where the seller alleged a concerted refusal to deal by purchasers of its product, the relevant market is comprised of buyers who are seen by the seller as reasonably good substitutes for each other regarding the purchase of its product. Thus “[a] concerted refusal to deal with all sellers of telemetry monitors, regardless of its equality, may still restrain competition in the alleged market for the purchase of outpatient cardiac monitors.” The lower court had instead focused on the market for the seller’s product.