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.
A recent European Commission (EC) fining decision against UK-based broker ICAP confirms that companies which merely facilitate a cartel will be tarred with the same brush as those which actually engage in the cartel.
On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state action immunity from federal antitrust laws.
This case could have important implications for European antitrust law, particularly if the ECJ determines that the EU's antitrust laws must be interpreted as curbing enforcement of private licensing agreements.
In a blog post last Friday, Debbie Feinstein, Director of Competition at the 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.