November 2, 1992
SUMMARY OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FOR PUBLIC RELEASE FOR MONDAY, OCT.
26, 1992 THROUGH FRIDAY, OCT. 30, 1992
10/26/92 | Department of Justice Issues Business Review Letter
In a letter from Charles A. James, Acting Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, to
counsel for Transplant Associates ("TA"), the Department
advised TA that it does not intend to challenge TA's
proposal to contract with a third-party accounting firm
which, with the help of a subcontracted research services
firm, will compile information and create a data base on
individual TA physicians' charges for kidney and liver
transplants. This data base will be used to prepare a
statistical analysis of the average price of a given
transplant procedure over a specified period of time,
e.g., twelve months. That analysis will be given to TA
for use in its negotiation for capitated (i.e.,
fixed-fee) contract proposals submitted by third-party
payers. TA is located in Dallas, Texas and is a
provider-based preferred provider organization whose
approximately 85 member physicians from numerous medical
specialties work in teams to perform kidney and liver
transplant procedures at Baylor University Medical Center
in Dallas, Texas.
|
10/28/92 | U.S. v. F.J. Dahill Co., Inc.
Criminal No.: 92-00623 (E.D. Pa.)
One-count information was filed in U.S. District Court in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, charging F.J. Dahill Co.,
Inc. of New Haven, Connecticut, with rigging bids, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for certain
polyurethane foam contracts in New York and Connecticut,
beginning at least as early as July 1987 and continuing
at least into August 1990. Polyurethane foam is a
material used in roofing projects.
|
10/30/92 | U.S. v. Harold A. Honickman
Civil No.: 92-2436 (D.D.C.)
Civil complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C., seeking a civil penalty from Harold A.
Honickman, of Loveladies, New Jersey, for violating the
premerger notification and waiting period requirements of
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. The complaint alleges that
Harold A. Honickman violated the Act in connection with
the acquisition of the assets of Brooklyn Seven-Up
Bottling Company, Inc., a company engaged in the
production, distribution and sale of carbonated soft
drinks in the New York metropolitan area. The complaint
also alleges that Honickman did not comply with the Act
before acquiring assets of Brooklyn Seven-Up in excess of
the Act's $15 million threshold on or shortly after July
31, 1987, and that he remained in continuous violation of
the Act until on or about December 31, 1988. The Act
permits a federal court, at the Department's request, to
assess a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each day that
a party is in violation. A proposed judgment was also
filed which, if approved by the court, will settle the
case with Honickman paying $1,976,000. |
Copies of legal filings are available from the Legal Procedure
Unit, Antitrust Division, Room 3233, Telephone No.: 514-2481.
92-361
|