Federal Trade Commission Archives - Page 12 of 28

Federal Trade Commission

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.

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.”

FTC Merger Review Likely to Incorporate Analysis of Privacy Issues

by Emily Townsend | Mar 3, 2015 | Consumer Protection/Privacy, FTC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission), along with the U.S. Department of Justice, can challenge mergers it believes will result in a substantial lessening of competition – for example through higher prices, lower quality or reduced rates of innovation. Although the analysis of whether a transaction may be anticompetitive typically focuses on price, privacy is increasingly regarded as a kind of non-price competition, like quality or innovation. During a recent symposium on the parameters and enforcement reach of Section 5 of the FTC Act, Deborah Feinstein, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, noted that privacy concerns are becoming more important in the agency’s merger reviews. Specifically she stated, “Privacy could be a form of non-price competition important to customers that could be actionable if two kinds of companies competed on privacy commitments on technologies they came up with.”

At this same symposium, Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, remarked on the agency’s increasing expectations that companies protect the consumer data they collect and be more transparent about what they collect, how they store and protect it, and about third parties with whom they share the data.

The FTC’s Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection fulfill the agency’s dual mission to promote competition and protect consumers, in part, through the enforcement of Section 5 of the FTC Act. With two areas of expertise and a supporting Bureau of Economics under one roof, the Commission is uniquely positioned to analyze whether a potential merger may substantially lessen privacy-related competition.

The concept that privacy is a form of non-price competition is not new to the FTC. In its 2007 statement upon closing its investigation into the merger of Google, Inc. and DoubleClick Inc., the Commission recognized that mergers can “adversely affect non-price attributes of competition, such as consumer privacy.” Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour’s dissent in the Google/DoubleClick matter outlined a number of forward-looking competition and privacy-related considerations for analyzing mergers of data-rich companies. The FTC ultimately concluded that the evidence in that case “did not support the theories of potential competitive harm” and thus declined to challenge the deal. The matter laid the groundwork, however, for the agency’s future consideration of these issues.

While the FTC has yet to challenge a transaction on the basis that privacy competition would be substantially lessened, parties can expect staff from both the Bureau of Competition and the Bureau of Consumer Protection to be working closely together to analyze a proposed transaction’s impact on privacy. The FTC’s review of mergers between entities with large databases of consumer information may focus on: (1) whether the transaction will result in decreased privacy protections,i.e., lower quality of privacy; and (2) whether the combined parties achieve market power as a result of combining their consumer data.

This concept is not unique to the United States. The European Commission’s 2008 decision inTomTom/Tele Atlas examined whether there would be a decrease in privacy-based competition [...]

Continue Reading

FTC Commissioner Brill Comments on Potential Reforms in Data Privacy Enforcement

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 20, 2015 | Consumer Protection/Privacy, FTC Developments

On February 18, 2015, Commissioner Julie Brill spoke to students at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth concerning the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) recent data privacy and security enforcement, as well as the FTC’s interactions with international regulators in this area. In her prepared remarks, Commissioner Brill described ways she hopes the FTC and other regulators can improve their current data privacy enforcement regimes to “develop practical, effective, and interoperable frameworks that will allow data to be adequately protected.”

Commissioner Brill addressed the skepticism of those who believe the United States is the “Wild West” of data privacy, by highlighting the FTC’s enforcement of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. However, she made clear that the U.S. “consumer privacy and data security framework can and should be improved.” She specifically endorsed President Obama’s proposed legislation as described during a recent visit to the FTC. These legislative proposals include strengthening the FTC’s existing data security enforcement tools by authorizing the FTC to obtain civil penalties from companies that break the law. Further, the White House and the FTC seek legislation that would provide consumers with greater transparency concerning how their data is collected and used by data brokers.

In addition to her comments concerning methods to improve the U.S. data security regime, Commissioner Brill described ongoing discussions with foreign data security regulators, especially those in Europe, concerning the global flow of personal data. Like their counterparts in the U.S., European regulators are in the process of drafting a new regulation to heighten data security protections and address the dynamic new ways companies are using personal data. As they modify their own data security frameworks, the FTC and foreign regulators are engaged in a dialogue concerning the interoperability of their data privacy laws. Both groups recognize the importance of the flow of data to their respective economies, but each seeks to protect the interests of consumers and companies under their own laws. Commissioner Brill is “optimistic” that agreements will be reached to promote the interoperability of the data privacy regimes.

As more companies create products that will collect and transmit personal data, there will likely be significant changes to the data privacy regimes attempting to protect consumers from harm. To avoid potential regulatory action, any company that collects, uses or shares consumers’ personal data should ensure that there are protections in place to secure personal data from breaches or hacks. In addition, companies should promote transparency by providing clear statements about their data collection and use to consumers.

Out-of-Market Divestiture Required to Resolve Competitive Concerns

by Jon B. Dubrow | Feb 9, 2015 | FTC Developments, Healthcare Antitrust, Mergers & Acquisitions

On January 30, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement of its investigation into Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s (Sun) acquisition of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (Ranbaxy) from Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. Sun and Ranbaxy are both multinational pharmaceutical companies that produce a range of generic and branded drugs.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges the relevant product market to be “the development, license, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of generic minocycline hydrochloride 50 mg, 75 mg, and 100 mg tablets (‘minocycline tablets’).” Ranbaxy is currently one of only three U.S. suppliers of the relevant doses of minocycline tablets, with Sun being one of a limited number of firms likely to enter the alleged market in the near future. The complaint further alleges that the acquisition would eliminate a potential future competitor and therefore tend to substantially lessen competition by foregoing or delaying Sun’s entry into the relevant market and increase the likelihood that the combined entity would reduce price competition.

To resolve the competitive concern, the FTC is requiring divestiture not only of the minocycline tablets but also a product outside of the alleged relevant market—minocycline capsules. In its aid to public comment, the FTC states that this out-of-market divestiture is necessary to ensure that the divestiture buyer “achieves regulatory approval to qualify a new [active pharmaceutical ingredient] supplier for its minocycline tablets as quickly as Ranbaxy would have.”

Once the FTC or U.S. Department of Justice determines that a competitive problem exists, the agency will seek potential remedies, including divestiture. A cornerstone principle the agencies apply in evaluating a proposed remedy is that the remedy must restore competition to the level that would have existed had the underlying merger or acquisition not proceeded. This case illustrates an application of that principle, where the FTC required the divestiture of the out-of-market assets because, in its view, if those assets were not included the remedy would have left the relevant product market less competitive than it would have been if Sun and Ranbaxy remained independent competitors.

Although not a common outcome, firms considering a transaction involving products subject to regulatory approval should take note of the potential for out-of-market divestitures when assessing a potential deal.

The FTC’s complaint and related documents can be found here.

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS