Department of Justice Targets Most Favored Nation Clauses
On Oct. 18, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice, in a joint
action with the Michigan attorney general, filed a civil antitrust action against Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan alleging that the insurer's use of most
favored nation clauses has stifled competition and raised prices on
healthcare services and insurance. Most favored nation clauses in
agreements between insurers and healthcare providers guarantee that
no rival can get a better rate than the insurer. Though this
lawsuit involves the healthcare industry, it could have important
implications for any business that uses most favored nation
Knowledge of Price Discrimination in Shipping Policy May
A federal district court recently ruled that a
manufacturer's shipping policy—in which the
manufacturer shipped to one distributor, but refused to ship to a
competitor of that distributor—is actionable under the
Robinson-Patman Act. In Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound
Exhaust System, Inc., evidence that the favored
distributor knew about the shipping policy and the competitor's
net price was higher because of the refusal to ship was sufficient
to survive a motion for summary judgment. This case serves as a
warning that different shipping terms may constitute cognizable
Class Actions on the Rise in Canada
Although class actions are relatively new to Canada,
cross-border claims are becoming more common. The significant
procedural differences between U.S. and Canadian courts can have
significant implications for litigants involved in parallel cases
in the two countries. For example, Canada does not have a federal
court system or multidistrict litigation mechanism, and class
certification standards may differ. Accordingly, careful case
management is essential.
United Kingdom Antitrust Agencies to Merge
On Oct. 14, 2010, the U.K. government announced a proposal to
combine the Office of Fair Trading's competition functions and
the Competition Commission in one agency devoted to competition and
markets. The new agency would be responsible for merger regulation,
market investigations, cartel and antitrust cases, as well as a
number of functions concerning regulated utilities. Additional
information is available in our
England & Wales Competition Law Newsletter.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a recent advisory opinion, the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general warned health care providers about entering into contracts that may generate illegal kickbacks and result in administrative penalties.
On November 12, 2013, US Airways, American Airlines, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), and several state Attorneys General announced an agreement to settle the antitrust litigation challenging the merger of the two carriers.
On November 14, 2013, members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights heard arguments regarding the effectiveness of current cartel prosecution and punishment strategies in deterring cartel conduct.
Heartburn in Massachusetts: The District of Massachusetts Activates FTC v Actavis
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision written by Justice Breyer, reversed the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of an FTC complaint under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act challenging a pharmaceutical reverse payment settlement even though the exclusionary effect of the settlement was within the scope of the patent grant.