FTC Developments Archives - Page 21 of 49

FTC Developments

FTC Releases Section 5 Guidelines

by Lisa A. Peterson and Young Cynn | Aug 14, 2015 | FTC Developments

On Thursday, August 13, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding “Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The statement was passed by a 4–1 vote, with Commissioner Ohlhausen voting against the statement. This is the first time the Commission has issued formal guidelines regarding its Section 5 authority. The guidelines were released after growing calls from Republican commissioners and congressmen to clarify the reach of the Commission’s enforcement power under Section 5.

The Commission set out the following three principles that the FTC will adhere to when challenging unfair methods of competition on the basis of Section 5 alone:

the Commission will be guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws, namely the promotion of consumer welfare;
the Commission will evaluate the act or practice under a framework similar to the rule of reason, that is, an act or practice challenged by the Commission must cause, or be likely to cause, harm to competition or the competitive process, taking into account any associated cognizable efficiencies and business justifications; and
the Commission is less likely to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of competition on a stand-alone basis if enforcement of the Sherman or Clayton Act is sufficient to address the competitive harm arising from the act or practice.

Commissioner Ohlhausen’s dissenting statement criticized the content of the guidance as “seriously lacking” and noted that “what substance the statement does offer ultimately provides more questions than answers, undermining its value as guidance.” Ohlhausen went on to condemn the lack of public comment and discussion that went into the preparation of the policy statement. Finally, she warned that the FTC staff would be “embolden[ed] . . . to explore the limits of [unfair methods of competition] in conduct and merger investigations” and that the guidance would “ultimately lead to more, not less, uncertainty and burdens for the business community.”

The policy statement notes that its purpose “is to provide the Commission’s view on how it approaches the use of its statutory authority.” Chairwoman Ramirez stated in her prepared remarks that “[t]he statement formally aligns Section 5 with the Sherman and Clayton Acts” and “does not signal any change of course.”

Four FTC Commissioners Reject Wright’s Call for GUPPI Safe Harbor

by Daniel Powers | Jul 16, 2015 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

Four members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a statement on July 13, 2015, disputing claims by a fellow commissioner that the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines include a “safe harbor” that is available in unilateral effects merger investigations. Commissioner Joshua Wright’s comments about the potential safe harbor arose in the context of the Commission’s investigation into Dollar Tree’s proposed acquisition of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. The FTC has accepted a proposed settlement to resolve the alleged anticompetitive effects of that transaction.

The dispute involves a Gross Upward Pricing Pressure Index (GUPPI) analysis. The GUPPI analysis permits the federal antitrust enforcement agencies to assess whether a merger involving differentiated products is likely to result in unilateral anticompetitive effects. Such effects can arise where the merged entity can profit from diverted sales. The GUPPI measures the value of diverted sales that would be gained by the second firm measured in proportion to the revenues that would be lost by the first firm.

The 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines anticipate the use of such an analysis in certain cases. Indeed, according to the guidelines, “[i]f the value of diverted sales is proportionately small, significant unilateral price effects are unlikely.” Commissioner Joshua Wright pointed to this language, and statements by one of the principal drafters of the 2010 Guidelines, to argue that the Department of Justice had already publicly announced a safe harbor where the GUPPI is less than five percent. Commissioner Wright argued that there was a strong legal, economic and policy case in favor of such a safe harbor, and urged the FTC to “adopt a GUPPI-based safe harbor in unilateral effects investigations where the data are available.”

Wright’s fellow commissioners firmly disagreed that any safe harbor has previously been identified, or that such a safe harbor is appropriate. In their statement, Chairman Ramirez and Commissioners Brill, Ohlhausen and McSweeney explained that the GUPPI analysis serves “as a useful initial screen to flag those markets where the transaction might likely harm competition and those where it might pose little or no risk to competition.” They emphasized that the GUPPI analysis is “only a starting point” in a merger investigation. The commissioners further claimed that Commissioner Wright’s remarks ignored “the reality that merger analysis is inherently fact-specific” and that “[t]the manner in which GUPPI analysis is used will vary depending on the factual circumstances, the available data, and the other evidence gathered during an investigation.” The commissioners concluded that “accumulated experience and economic learning” do not provide an adequate basis for recognizing a GUPPI safe harbor. The Commission will continue to “use GUPPIs flexibly and as merely one tool of analysis in the Commission’s assessment of unilateral anticompetitive effects.”

FTC Comment: Minnesota Law Requiring Public Disclosure of Health Care Contract Data Increases Risk of Anticompetitive Behavior

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jul 14, 2015 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Healthcare Antitrust

On June 29, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) responded to a request for comment from two Minnesota state legislators concerning recently enacted amendments to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). Under the amendments, the MGDPA would be expanded to cover all data collected by health maintenance organizations, health plans, and other health services vendors that contract with the state to provide health care services to Minnesota residents. In practice, this means that the confidential terms and conditions of health plans’ contracts with health care providers could be subject to public disclosure.

While they commended the “laudable goals” of the MGDPA, the FTC ultimately concluded that the amendments could lead to the disclosure of competitively sensitive information and, therefore, increase the likelihood of anticompetitive behavior. Specifically, there were two major concerns raised in the FTC comment.

First, the amendments likely would lead to the exchange of fees, discounts and other pricing terms among providers, which would increase the likelihood of provider collusion. The comment notes that in markets with a relatively small number of competitors and where those competitors have the ability to accurately monitor each other’s transactions, there is increased risk of collusion.

The second concern is that the exchange of information among providers could impede the ability of health plans to selectively contract among providers. In a typical selective contracting environment “where health care providers do not know each other’s prices, providers are more likely to bid aggressively—offering lower prices—to ensure they are not excluded from selective networks.” If providers know the prices, rebates, and discount arrangements offered by their competitors, they possess a new tool in negotiations with health plans and are less likely to bid aggressively.

The FTC argued that a balance is needed between providing consumers with the information they need to make informed decisions concerning their health care and allowing competitors to share information that could facilitate anticompetitive behavior. The FTC encouraged the Minnesota legislature to consider the types of information that would be the most helpful for consumers in selecting their service, such as actual or predicted out-of-pocket expenses, co-pays, and quality comparisons of plans and providers. However, they urged caution in mandating public disclosure of health plan contract details and fee schedules.

While the FTC’s comment was addressed to legislators, it highlights the kinds of information exchanges that the antitrust regulators believe can lead to anticompetitive behavior in the health care industry. In that sense it builds on the joint FTC and U.S. Department of Justice Statements of Enforcement Policy in Health Care, originally published in 1996. Providers should avoid exchange of any information concerning their fees, discounts and other pricing arrangements with their competitors.

To see the full letter from the FTC, please click here.

ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting Highlight: “Antitrust & Health Care: Square Peg in a Round Hole?”

by Michelle Lowery | Apr 30, 2015 | FTC Developments, Healthcare Antitrust, Mergers & Acquisitions

In this month’s American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, the program “Antitrust & Health Care: Square Peg in a Round Hole?” featured debate and discussion about antitrust law treatment of health care transactions and how that treatment might (or should) evolve (via regulation, legislation, or some combination of approaches), or conversely, whether the intersection of antitrust law and health care is more akin to a square peg meeting a round hole. Moderated by Jim Donahue (Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General), the panel’s speakers included Robert Berenson, MD (The Urban Institute), Alexis Gilman (the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)), Melinda Hatton (American Hospital Association (AHA)) and Elinor Hoffmann (Office of the New York Attorney General (AG)).

Horizontal Mergers

The program first considered a hypothetical merger of specialty physician practices, where the acquiring practice has privileges at one of the market’s two hospitals and the merger would consolidate privileges at that hospital.

The FTC said it would likely look at the transaction on a specialty-by-specialty basis; the New York AG agreed, but thought it was worth considering: is multi-specialty a market itself? She referenced ProMedica’s cluster markets as a possible route for analyzing the transaction (e.g., a parent might take two children to a multi-specialty practice at the same time, one to see a pediatrician and the other to see a dermatologist).

The American Hospital Association (AHA) thought that with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) incentive to keep the population out of the hospital, hospitals are repurposing services toward population health goals, and referenced remote medicine and affiliations.

Remedies

The FTC stated that it continued to prefer structural remedies in the form of injunctions or divestitures for health care transactions, pointing to its rejection of Phoebe Putney’s proposed conduct remedy. The New York AG agreed that while structural remedies are typically best, the states (particularly Pennsylvania and New York) tend to be more willing to consider conduct remedies, often with the goal of marrying regulation with achievement (efficiencies).

Dr. Berenson posited that physician group acquisitions are the wave of the future, because the current regulatory environment makes solo practice difficult. So, he said, where physicians or specialties must be divested, those doctors are now likely to seek hospital employment.

From the hospital perspective, the AHA noted that health care transactions are a peculiar breed— health care cannot be divorced from regulation, acquisition costs are usually very high, and hospitals must pay fair market value under Stark and Anti-Kickback laws—and commented that the peculiarities of such transactions are not always adequately taken into consideration in merger challenges.

Vertical Mergers; Narrow vs. Broad Networks

The panel next considered a hypothetical merger where a health plan with 60 percent market share in a mid-size city purchases one of the two hospitals and changes its network from broad to narrow.

The FTC noted that although they have not challenged this sort of vertical health care transaction, it would do so under the right circumstances (e.g., if the hospital had no excess capacity, [...]

Continue Reading

Antitrust Enforcers Discuss Recent Highlights, Ongoing Cases, Enforcement Priorities and General Trends at the 2015 ABA Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting

by Louise Aberg | Apr 29, 2015 | Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments, EC Developments, FTC Developments

The American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting concluded earlier this month with the traditional “Enforcers’ Roundtable,” an interview with leading competition authorities about recent highlights, ongoing cases, enforcement priorities and general trends.

This year’s participants were Bill Baer, U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust; Edith Ramirez, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman; Kathleen Foote, Chair of the Multistate Antitrust Task Force of the National Association of Attorneys General; Margrethe Vestager, E.U. Commissioner for Competition; and Lord David Currie, Chairman of the one-year old UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Below is a summary of certain highlights from the discussion.

Recent Domestic Achievements and Enforcement Priorities

Ramirez touted the FTC’s recent U.S. Supreme Court victory in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners[1], in which the court held that a state licensing board was not entitled to state action immunity because active market participants controlled the board, and the board was not subject to active supervision by the state. Foote noted that states are currently taking steps to ensure compliance with this ruling.

Ramirez also highlighted the FTC’s current efforts to challenge the merger between the nation’s two largest food distributors, Sysco and US Foods. Foote noted that the Sysco/US Foods[2] case is a multistate effort, with 11 state attorneys general collaborating with the FTC.

Enforcement in the pharmaceutical industry, especially pertaining to reverse payment settlements, is a priority, panelists stated. Ramirez discussed the FTC’s ongoing litigation in three reverse payment settlement cases. She noted that in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Actavis[3], the FTC posits that non-monetary payments, such as supply agreements, could constitute reverse payments and thus be subject to antitrust scrutiny.

Foote remarked that reverse payment settlements are also a major state focus, pointing to the recent settlement between the New York Attorney General and two generic pharmaceutical companies, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.

Global Cartel Enforcement: a Record-Breaking Year

Baer and Vestager highlighted the increasing number and severity of fines imposed on companies engaged in price-fixing, as well as prison sentences imposed on executives in the U.S. In recent years, enforcers have scrutinized conduct in a range of industries, including financial services, agriculture, ocean shipping, consumer goods and the auto parts industry.

Baer indicated that cartel enforcement accounts for more than 40 percent of the Antitrust Division’s work. Vestager noted that the European Commission (EC) rendered 10 decisions related to cartel activity in 2014, including eight settlements. She noted that settlements are part of the EC’s “toolbox,” but the EC would continue rendering infringement decisions to develop case law.

In contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the EC, Currie said that the CMA’s 2014 cartel record was not as strong as he would have liked and that the CMA received a recent budget increase in part to enhance enforcement efforts.

International Enforcement Cooperation

Each of the panelists praised the quality of international cooperation among antitrust agencies. Vestager said that 60 [...]

Continue Reading

FTC Clarifies “Failing Firm” Defense

by McDermott Will & Emery | Apr 2, 2015 | FTC Developments, Healthcare Antitrust, Mergers & Acquisitions

Earlier this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published an article that offers guidance on the “failing firm” or “flailing firm” defense often invoked in the hospital merger context. The article, written by Debbie Feinstein and Alexis Gilman of the Bureau of Competition, clarifies the circumstances under which this defense is and is not available.

At the outset, Feinstein and Gilman point out the basic requirements for establishing a failing firm defense, as set forth in § 11 of the Horizontal Merger guidelines:

the company is unable to meet its obligations as they come due;
the firm would not be able to reorganize successfully in bankruptcy; and
it has made unsuccessful good-faith efforts to elicit reasonable alternative offers that would keep its assets in the relevant market and pose a less severe danger to competition than does the proposed merger.

The article goes on to emphasize an additional nuance required for the defense—that the acquiring company is the only available purchaser. This goes hand-in-hand with requirement three listed above. As an example, the authors describe a recent FTC investigation that involved “a hospital that was clearly failing.” The hospital’s bankrupt status did not calm the FTC’s concerns about the transaction, because the FTC learned that there was an interested alternate purchaser who did not pose the same competitive risks as the chosen acquirer.

Even if the acquisition price of a “failing” or “flailing” firm is below the Hart-Scott-Rodino reporting threshold, potential acquirers should assess the antitrust risk associated with the transaction and be sure to factor any costs associated with that risk into the sticker price. The failing or flailing firm should be prepared to demonstrate the efforts it made to find an acquirer. Non-reportable transactions are within the FTC’s reach and are often on the agency’s radar, particularly in the health care context.

The full text of the article is available here.

FTC Consent Agreement with Par Petroleum Demonstrates Increased Agency Focus on Competitive Effects

by Emily Townsend | Mar 29, 2015 | FTC Developments, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration, Mergers & Acquisitions

On March 18, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered Par Petroleum Corporation to terminate its storage and throughput rights at a key gasoline terminal in Hawaii. This action will settle FTC charges seeking to prevent Par’s acquisition of Koko’oha Investments, Inc. Notably, the market structure created as a result of this remedy mirrors a market structure that was deemed anticompetitive in a 2005 FTC action. The two differing approaches to the same market highlight a key trend in the FTC’s merger enforcement: the focus on competitive effects of a transaction, as opposed to the resulting market structure.

The Market for Hawaii-Grade Gasoline Blendstock

The allegedly anticompetitive transaction affects the market for Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock. Gasoline blendstock is produced by refining crude oil and is later combined with ethanol to make finished gasoline. The finished gasoline is sold to Hawaiian consumers.

Prior to the transaction, there were four competitors in the market for Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock. Par and another oil company competed by operating refineries and producing the blendstock on the Hawaiian Islands. The other two competitors, Mid Pac Petroleum, LLC, and Aloha Petroleum, Ltd., competed by sharing access to the only commercial gasoline terminal on the Islands not owned by a refinery and capable of receiving full waterborne shipments of gasoline blendstock. This terminal, the Barbers Point Terminal, was owned by Aloha, but Mid Pac shared access through a long-term storage and throughput agreement.

The two oil refiners produced more gasoline than was consumed in Hawaii. As a result, importing gasoline blendstock was unnecessary. However, Mid Pac and Aloha were able to constrain the price of gasoline blendstock purchased from the Hawaiian refiners by maintaining their ability to import gasoline blendstock through the Barbers Point Terminal.

The Proposed Transaction and the FTC Challenge

On June 2, 2014, Par agreed to acquire Koko’oha for $107 million. As part of this transaction, Par would acquire Koko’oha’s 100 percent membership interest in Mid Pac and, therefore, Mid Pac’s rights to access the Barbers Point Terminal. The FTC filed a complaint alleging this transaction was likely to substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply of Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock.

The basis of the FTC’s action was that “[t]he Acquisition would weaken the threat of imports as a constraint on local refiners’ [gasoline blendstock] prices.” By acquiring Mid Pac’s throughput and storage rights at Barbers Point Terminal, Par would have an incentive to use those rights strategically to weaken Aloha’s ability to constrain the price of gasoline blendstock. The specific competitive concern the FTC cited was that Par would store substantial amounts of gasoline in the Barbers Point Terminal for extended periods of time. By doing so, Par would tie up the capacity at the terminal and thereby reduce the size of import shipment that Aloha could receive at the terminal. “This would force Aloha to spread substantial fixed freight costs over a smaller number of barrels of gasoline, which would significantly increase its cost-per-barrel of importing.”

On March 18, 2015, the FTC and Par [...]

Continue Reading

FTC Rule Change Simplifies Process Following a Denial of a Preliminary Injunction Motion

by Lisa A. Peterson | Mar 18, 2015 | FTC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

On March 14, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced procedural revisions governing the FTC process when it loses an injunction bid in federal court, to block the consummation of a merger pending its in-house administrative proceedings on the legality of the merger.

When the FTC seeks to challenge a merger, the FTC generally seeks an injunction in court to prevent consummation of the merger pending the outcome of an internal administrative proceeding. If the injunction is implemented, it prevents the parties from integrating the assets and preserves the FTC’s ability to effectively and efficiently fix the merger should it be warranted at the conclusion of the administrative proceeding.

Under the new rules, when the FTC loses its request for an injunction, the pending in-house administrative proceeding will be automatically withdrawn or stayed at the request of the merging parties unless the FTC determines that continuing the litigation would serve the public interest. The intention of the new procedure it to make clear that the FTC will not automatically continue its internal administrative hearing to block a merger if it fails to win an injunction in federal court.

When deciding whether to continue its administrative proceedings, the FTC will still evaluate a proposed transaction under the same factors it used before the rule change. The five factors the FTC uses to determine whether it is in the public interest to pursue administrative proceedings are: (1) a federal court’s factual findings and legal conclusions; (2) any new evidence developed during the preliminary injunction proceeding; (3) whether administrative proceedings will resolve important issues of fact, law or merger policy raised by the transaction; (4) an overall evaluation of the costs and benefits; and (5) any other matter that influences whether it would be in the public interest to continue with the merger challenge.

The FTC’s procedural revision will go into force shortly. It will, therefore, be in effect before the outcome of its preliminary injunction hearing seeking to block the merger between Sysco Corp. and US Foods Inc. pending an internal administrative proceeding. The preliminary injunction hearing is set in May 2015 before Judge Amit Mehta in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the in-house administrative proceeding is set for July. If the FTC loses the preliminary injunction hearing in federal court, the new procedure will be exercised for the first time.

FTC Competition Chief Defends Stand-Alone Section 5 Use in Unfair Competition Cases

by Young Cynn | Mar 16, 2015 | FTC Developments

In a blog post last Friday, Debbie Feinstein, Director of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), defended the agency’s use of FTC Act Section 5 to target unfair methods of competition outside the scope of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

While the use of Section 5 in consumer protection cases has long been established, many, including U.S. Congress members and FTC Commissioners, have urged the FTC in recent years to issue clearer guidelines on how Section 5 will be used to target conduct related to unfair methods of competition. Feinstein suggested that those interested in the FTC’s future use of Section 5 “should look at what the Commission has done and the reason it gave for acting to stop the behavior. . . . The touchstone of every stand-alone Section 5 claim . . . is likely or actual harm to competition or the competitive process.”

Feinstein pointed specifically to invitation to collude cases as a prime example of the type of conduct prosecuted in a stand-alone Section 5 action. The FTC first brought an invitation to collude case in the early 1990s, see Quality Trailer Products, 115 F.T.C. 922 (1992), in which Quality Trailer Products employees visited a competitor and urged it to raise its prices while stating that Quality Trailer would also raise prices. Since that time, the FTC has continued to use Section 5 to bring actions in invitation to collude cases. Most recently, the FTC brought complaints against two internet resellers of UPC barcodes in July 2014, alleging they had sent messages to one of their competitors proposing a scheme to raise their prices in line with the prices of another competitor. Feinstein suggested that the large number of cases brought unanimously by the Commissioners “demonstrates that we are using our stand-alone Section 5 authority responsibly.”

Feinstein also noted that nearly all stand-alone Section 5 cases brought by the FTC have resulted in an injunctive remedy — “I want to underscore that the Commission’s policy is not to seek disgorgement in stand-alone Section 5 cases. . . . Without the threat of a monetary penalty (let alone treble damages), I find it hard to understand the claim that significant procompetitive conduct is chilled by the possibility that the FTC may use its stand-alone Section 5 authority in some unforeseen way.”

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS