Markets Wired - Page 1159 of 1416 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC, States to Host Press Conference Announcing Law Enforcement Sweep Targeting Fraudulently Marketed Medical Discount Plans

Media Advisory

August 9, 2010

WHAT:	Forty-nine million Americans lack health insurance. The FTC and 20 state enforcement officials will announce a crackdown on the scammers who target the uninsured, the unemployed, and the uninsurable to peddle “medical discount plans” fraudulently marketed as health insurance.
WHEN:	11 A.M., Wednesday, August 11, 2010
WHERE:	Federal Trade Commission Alexander Hamilton U. S. Customs House One Bowling Green – Museum Entrance New York, New York 10004
WHO:	David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General Greg Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General James J. Wrynn, New York Insurance Superintendent A consumer guest

Reporters who wish to participate, but who cannot attend the event can call 1-866-363-9013. The conference leader is Gail Kingsland and the conference ID is 93067985

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Registration Scam

The Federal Trade Commission has permanently halted the operations of Canadian con artists who allegedly posed as domain name registrars and convinced thousands of U.S. consumers, small businesses and non-profit organizations to pay bogus bills by leading them to believe they would lose their Web site addresses unless they paid. Settlement and default judgment orders signed by the court will bar the deceptive practices in the future.

In June 2008, the FTC charged Toronto-based Internet Listing Service with sending fake invoices to small businesses and others, listing the existing domain name of the consumer’s Web site or a slight variation on the domain name, such as substituting “.org” for “.com.” The invoices appeared to come from the businesses’ existing domain name registrar and instructed them to pay for an annual “WEBSITE ADDRESS LISTING.” The invoices also claimed to include a search engine optimization service. Most consumers who received the “invoices” were led to believe that they had to pay them to maintain their registrations of domain names. Other consumers were induced to pay based on Internet Listing Service’s claims that its “Search Optimization” service would “direct mass traffic” to their sites and that their “proven search engine listing service” would result in “a substantial increase in traffic.”

The FTC’s complaint charged that most consumers who paid the defendants’ invoices did not receive any domain name registration services and that the “search optimization” service did not result in increased traffic to the consumers’ Web sites.

A federal district court judge in Chicago, Robert M. Dow, Jr., ordered a temporary halt to the deceptive claims and froze the defendants’ assets, pending trial. The settlement and default judgment orders announced today end that litigation.

The orders bar the defendants from misrepresenting: that they have a preexisting business relationship with consumers; that consumers owe them money; that they will provide domain name registration; and that they will provide “search optimization services” that will substantially increase traffic to consumers’ Web sites. The defendants are also required to disclose any material restrictions or aspects of any goods or services they provide.

The settlement order, entered against defendants Isaac Benlolo, Kirk Mulveney, Pearl Keslassy, and 1646153 Ontario Inc., includes a suspended judgment of $4,261,876, the total amount of consumer injury caused by the illegal activities. Based on the inability of the settling defendants to pay, they will turn over $10,000 to satisfy the judgment. The default judgment order was entered against defendant Steven E. Dale and includes a judgment in the amount of $4,261,876.

Charges against Ari Balabanian and Data Business Solutions were dismissed by the court at the FTC’s request.

NOTE: Stipulated orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

(Il4)

FTC Order Requires Tops Markets to Sell Seven Penn Traffic Supermarkets

The Federal Trade Commission today announced a settlement agreement with Tops Markets LLC that protects consumers from the potential anticompetitive effects of Tops’ recent acquisition of the bankrupt Penn Traffic Company supermarket chain. To settle FTC charges that the acquisition was anticompetitive in several areas of New York and Pennsylvania, Tops has agreed to sell seven Penn Traffic supermarkets to FTC-approved buyers. Because the FTC adopted a flexible process for reviewing the potential anticompetitive effects of the acquisition, none of the 79 Penn Traffic stores was liquidated in the bankruptcy proceeding.

In November 2009, Penn Traffic filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Through an expedited bankruptcy proceeding, Tops bought all of Penn Traffic’s assets, including 79 supermarkets in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire, for approximately $85 million. The acquisition, however, raised competition issues in several areas of New York and Pennsylvania.

Because a full FTC investigation before the deal was completed could have led the bankruptcy court to liquidate the Penn Traffic supermarket assets, the FTC staff reached an agreement with Tops that allowed the transaction to close immediately, while allowing staff to complete its review after the deal was completed. At the same time, Tops agreed to keep all the newly acquired Penn Traffic stores open and subsequently to sell any stores that posed competitive concerns for the FTC.

Tops is a New York-based company, with its principal place of business in Williamsville, New York. Before the acquisition, it owned and operated 71 supermarkets in New York and Pennsylvania, all under the Tops name. Penn Traffic is a Delaware company headquartered in Syracuse, New York. Before the acquisition, it operated 70 supermarkets in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire under the Bi-Lo, P&C Foods, and Quality Markets banners.

Through its investigation, the FTC staff found five local areas where competition was an issue: Bath, Cortland, Ithaca, and Lockport, New York; and Sayre, Pennsylvania. In these markets, absent a remedy, staff found that Tops’ acquisition of Penn Traffic would be anticompetitive and likely would lead to higher grocery prices for consumers. In each market there are no more than three supermarkets within a 10- to 15-mile area. Consistent with past investigations, staff concluded that other chains such as Aldi’s, buying clubs, and other food stores would not constrain prices after the merger was completed.

Further, in many of these geographic areas, staff found that new competitors were unlikely to enter the market quickly enough to prevent the acquisition’s anticompetitive effects. And, in those markets where entry might occur in the future, staff found that despite the new competition, the markets would still be highly concentrated and the transaction, therefore, anticompetitive.

The settlement order announced today requires Tops to sell seven Penn Traffic supermarkets to an FTC-approved buyer within three months. It also requires Tops and its parent company Holdco LLC to do everything necessary to facilitate the sale and operation of the seven supermarkets in Bath, Cortland, Ithaca (two stores), and Lockport, New York; and Sayre, Pennsylvania (two stores).

The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 5-0. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/penntraffic/.

NOTE: The Commission issues a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid in public comment can be found on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 101-0074)
(Tops Markets.final)

FTC Settles Charges of Anticompetitive Conduct Against Intel

The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future.

The settlement goes beyond the terms applied to Intel in previous actions against the company and will help restore competition that was lost as a result of Intel’s alleged past anticompetitive tactics. At the same time, the settlement will leave the company room to innovate and offer competitive pricing.

“This case demonstrates that the FTC is willing to challenge anticompetitive conduct by even the most powerful companies in the fastest-moving industries,” said Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “By accepting this settlement, we open the door to competition today and address Intel’s anticompetitive conduct in a way that may not have been available in a final judgment years from now. Everyone, including Intel, gets a greater degree of certainty about the rules of the road going forward, which allows all the companies in this dynamic industry to move ahead and build better, more innovative products.”

The FTC settlement applies to Central Processing Units, Graphics Processing Units and chipsets and prohibits Intel from using threats, bundled prices, or other offers to exclude or hamper competition or otherwise unreasonably inhibit the sale of competitive CPUs or GPUs. The settlement also prohibits Intel from deceiving computer manufacturers about the performance of non-Intel CPUs or GPUs.

The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel’s disclosures related to its compiler – a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel’s CPU for the next six years.

The FTC sued Intel in December 2009 alleging that the company used anticompetitive tactics to cut off rivals’ access to the marketplace and deprive consumers of choice and innovation in the microchips that comprise computers’ central processing unit, or CPU. These chips are critical components that often are referred to as the “brains” of a computer. The action also challenged Intel’s conduct in markets for graphics processing units and other chips.

The FTC alleged that Intel’s anticompetitive practices violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which is broader than the antitrust laws and prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce. Unlike an antitrust violation, a violation of Section 5 cannot be used to establish liability for plaintiffs to seek triple damages in private litigation against the same defendant.

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:

conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others; and
retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them.

In addition, the FTC settlement order will require Intel to:

modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, Nvidia, and Via so that those companies have more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement;
offer to extend Via’s x86 licensing agreement for five years beyond the current agreement, which expires in 2013;
maintain a key interface, known as the PCI Express Bus, for at least six years in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips. These assurances will provide incentives to manufacturers of complementary, and potentially competitive, products to Intel’s CPUs to continue to innovate; and
disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler.

The FTC vote approving the proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 7, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/intel/.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 061-0247)
(Intel.final.wpd)

FTC Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Matter of TiVo, Inc., vs. EchoStar Corporation

The Federal Trade Commission has filed an amicus brief before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case concerning the standards courts should use when considering whether to grant a patent holder’s motion for contempt of a previously entered injunction against acts of infringement (TiVo, Inc., vs. EchoStar Corporation). The FTC’s brief supports neither of the parties and takes no position on the specific facts of the case. The agency recommended that in shaping the appropriate standards, the court consider how making contempt proceedings and contempt sanctions too easily available could dampen incentives for follow-on innovation, but also should bear in mind how enforceable injunctions can serve as an important prerequisite to innovation and entry.

A divided Federal Circuit panel previously held that a district court had properly evaluated Echostar’s post-judgment conduct in contempt proceedings, and held Echostar in contempt based upon its finding that Echostar had infringed TiVo’s patents despite its design-around efforts.

The FTC vote approving the amicus brief filing was 3-2, with Commissioners William E. Kovacic and Edith Ramirez dissenting. (FTC File No. P082105; the staff contact is Ruthanne Deutsch, Office of the General Counsel, 202-326-3677.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 32.2010.wpd)

FTC Chairman to Detail Terms of Intel Corp. Settlement Order

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz will be joined by Bureau of Competition Director Richard Feinstein at FTC Headquarters on Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. ET to detail the terms of the Commission’s order settling charges that Intel Corporation used anticompetitive tactics that stifled innovation and harmed consumers in the market for computer microprocessors, graphics processing units, and chipsets. The FTC’s complaint, filed in December 2009, charged Intel with waging a systematic campaign to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace, and harming consumers.

WHO:	Jon Leibowitz, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission Richard Feinstein, Director, FTC Bureau of Competition Other FTC Commissioners
WHEN:	August 4, 2010, 10:00 a.m. ET For reporters who cannot attend the press conference call-in lines will be available. The press conference will also be webcast. Dial-in: 1-866-363-9013 Conference ID: 92191860 Chairperson: Bruce Jennings Call-in lines are for the media only.
WHERE:	FTC Headquarters, Room 432
PRESS CONTACT:	Peter Kaplan, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2334 Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2161

FTC Issues Final Rule to Protect Consumers in Credit Card Debt

Starting on October 27, 2010, for-profit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone may no longer charge a fee before they settle or reduce a customer’s credit card or other unsecured debt.

“At the FTC we strive every day to make sure America’s middle class families get straight deals for their dollars,” Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “This rule will stop companies who offer consumers false promises of reducing credit card debts by half or more in exchange for large, up-front fees. Too many of these companies pick the last dollar out of consumers’ pockets – and far from leaving them better off, push them deeper into debt, even bankruptcy.”

Three other Telemarketing Sales Rule provisions to take effect on September 27, 2010, will:

require debt relief companies to make specific disclosures to consumers;
prohibit them from making misrepresentations; and
extend the Telemarketing Sales Rule to cover calls consumers make to these firms in response to debt relief advertising.

The Final Rule covers telemarketers of for-profit debt relief services, including credit counseling, debt settlement, and debt negotiation services. The Final Rule does not cover nonprofit firms, but does cover companies that falsely claim nonprofit status. Over the past decade, the FTC and state enforcers have brought a combined 259 cases to stop deceptive and abusive practices by debt relief providers that have targeted consumers in financial distress.

Advance Fee Ban

The Final Rule contains specific requirements for debt relief providers related to charging an advance fee before providing any services. It specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until:

the debt relief service successfully renegotiates, settles, reduces, or otherwise changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts;
there is a written settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor, and the consumer has agreed to it; and
the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider.

To ensure that debt relief providers do not front-load their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program, the Final Rule specifies how debt relief providers can collect their fee for each settled debt. First, the provider’s fee for a single debt must be in proportion to the total fee that would be charged if all of the debts had been settled. Alternatively, if the provider bases its fee on the percentage of what the consumer saves as result of using its services, the percentage charged must be the same for each of the consumer’s debts.

Dedicated Account for Fees and Savings

Another new provision of the Final Rule will allow debt relief companies to require that consumers set aside their fees and savings for payment to creditors in a “dedicated account.” However, providers may only require a dedicated account as long as five conditions are met:

the dedicated account is maintained at an insured financial institution;
the consumer owns the funds (including any interest accrued);
the consumer can withdraw the funds at any time without penalty;
the provider does not own or control or have any affiliation with the company administering the account; and
the provider does not exchange any referral fees with the company administering the account.

Disclosures and Prohibited Misrepresentations

Under the Final Rule, providers will have to make several disclosures when telemarketing their services to consumers. Before the consumer signs up for any debt relief service, providers must disclose fundamental aspects of their services, including how long it will take for consumers to see results, how much it will cost, the negative consequences that could result from using debt relief services, and key information about dedicated accounts if they choose to require them.

The Final Rule also prohibits misrepresentations about any debt relief service, including success rates and whether the provider is a nonprofit entity. The FTC’s Statement of Basis and Purpose, which accompanies the Final Rule, provides extensive guidance about the evidence providers must have to make advertising claims commonly used in selling debt relief services.

The Rulemaking Process

In August 2009, the FTC published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule and requesting public comments. Over 300 commenters, representing a wide variety of stakeholders, submitted comments in response. The Commission also held a public forum on the proposed amendments on November 4, 2009. The FTC developed the Final Rule based on the public comments, the record of the public forum and the FTC’s September 2008 Workshop on the debt settlement industry, recent testimony before Congress, and law enforcement actions brought by the Commission and the states.

Information for Businesses

Today, the FTC staff issued a compliance guide to help businesses comply with the new debt relief rules. The compliance guide describes the key changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule affecting debt relief services, helps businesses determine if they are covered by the new rules, details information that covered entities must disclose to customers, and discusses how fees may now be collected. It can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/marketing/bus72.pdf on the agency’s website and is linked to this press release.

The FTC vote approving publication of the Federal Register notice was 4-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch voting no. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/R411001finalrule.pdf. The provisions of the Final Rule will take effect on September 27, with the exception of the advance fee ban provision, which will take effect on October 27.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

(FTC File No. R411001)
(Debt Services.final)

Mortgage Relief Marketer Will Return $2.4 Million to Consumers to Settle FTC Charges

A company that deceived consumers with promises it could save their homes from foreclosure will pay $2.4 million to victims as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The case is part of the agency’s continuing crackdown on scams that prey on financially distressed homeowners.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Home Assure LLC conducted a nationwide marketing campaign designed to take advantage of struggling homeowners by offering so-called mortgage foreclosure rescue services. Home Assure typically charged consumers an up-front fee of $1,500 to $2,500. The company’s representatives falsely claimed that its special relationships with lenders would enable it to get favorable loan modifications or stop foreclosure, and that the company had helped thousands of consumers avoid foreclosure.

One of the claims on its website was, “If we are unable to negotiate a plan with your lender that improves your situation or gives you a viable strategy to avoid foreclosure, we will refund 100% of your money. . . No questions asked!”

According to the FTC, however, Home Assure did little or nothing to help consumers avoid foreclosure. In numerous instances the company refused to pay refunds, sometimes claiming that consumers did not meet the terms of the contract for a refund or that they had breached the contract by contacting their lender or filing for bankruptcy, and sometimes without giving a reason. (4/6/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/04/hud.shtm; 11/24/2009 release http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/stolenhope.shtm)

The settlement order imposes a $2.4 million judgment on Home Assure and bans the company from selling mortgage loan modification and foreclosure relief services. The order also permanently prohibits Home Assure from misrepresenting any good or service, disclosing or benefitting from customers’ personal information, and failing to dispose of customer information properly.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

NOTE: Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. X090036)

FTC Order Restores Competition in U.S. Markets for Herbicide Products

Australian chemical company Nufarm Limited has agreed to sell certain assets and modify some of its business agreements to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its 2008 acquisition of rival A.H. Marks Holding Limited hurt competition in the U.S. market for three herbicides that are relied upon by farmers, landscapers, and consumers.

Under a proposed FTC settlement, Nufarm will sell rights and assets associated with two of the herbicides to competitors and will modify agreements with two other companies to allow them to fully compete in the market for the other herbicide.

Nufarm’s acquisition of United Kingdom-based A.H. Marks gave Nufarm monopolies in the U.S. markets for two herbicides called MCPA and MCPP-P, which also are known as phenoxy herbicides. The transaction also left only two competitors in the market for a third phenoxy herbicide, called 2,4DB. The three herbicides are widely used in the turf, lawn care, and agriculture industries to eliminate certain weeds safely and cheaply.

MCPA is typically used for cereal crops such as wheat and barley, MCPP-p is used for turf care by landscapers and consumers, and 2,4DB is used for peanut and alfalfa crops. Before the transaction, both Nufarm and A.H. Marks sold each of the herbicides in their raw form to agricultural formulators who used them to make formulated herbicides.

According to the FTC’s complaint, there are no comparable substitutes on the market for these three herbicides, and it is unlikely that any new competitors will enter the market. As a result, Nufarm likely would be able to raise prices for the products to consumers. In fact, the FTC alleges that Nufarm acquired A.H. Marks with the expectation that it would be able to raise prices on phenoxy herbicides after the deal eliminated competition from A.H. Marks.

The proposed order settling the FTC charges will restore competition in the U.S. markets for MCPA, MCPP-P, and 2,4DB by requiring Nufarm to sell A.H. Marks’s MCPA rights and assets to a new competitor, Albaugh Inc., and A.H. Marks’s MCPP-p rights and assets to another new competitor, PBI Gordon Co. In addition, Nufarm will modify its current agreements with The Dow Chemical Company and Aceto Corporation related to MCPA and 2,4-DB, in order to allow them to compete in the U.S. markets for these two herbicides.

The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 4-0, with Commissioner Edith Ramirez recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until August 30, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/nufarm/.

International Cooperation

There was extensive international cooperation leading to the resolution of this case. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Canadian Competition Bureau, and the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading and Competition Commission also reviewed this merger. The FTC worked particularly closely with staff from the Canadian Competition Bureau throughout the investigation to arrive at a proposed settlement order that restored competition in both the U.S. and Canadian markets for MCPA. Throughout their respective investigations, staff from these agencies and the FTC coordinated their enforcement efforts under the terms of the relevant cooperation agreements and the OECD Recommendation on cooperation among its members. The parties reached a separate agreement in the United Kingdom resolving similar concerns.

(FTC File No. 081-0130)

FTC Warns Consumers to Beware of Pitfalls When Choosing Pre-paid Phone Cards

Pre-paid calling cards can be a convenient way to stay in touch. But the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s consumer protection agency, and the Federal Communications Commission, the nation’s telecommunications agency, caution that hidden costs and other problems can leave consumers with less call time than they were promised.

The FTC offered this advice:

Look for added fees that may diminish the value of the card, like disconnect fees, maintenance fees, or pay phone surcharges.
Check whether the advertised minutes only apply if you make one call and not more.
Find out whether the advertised minutes still apply if you use the “toll-free access” number rather than the “local access” number, and whether the advertised minutes can be used to call cell phones.
Ask whether there is an expiration date for minutes.
Make sure that the explanation of fees makes sense to you.
If possible, select a card that comes with a toll-free customer service number.
Consider buying a card of a small denomination first, because if something goes wrong, your loss is limited.

To learn more, read the consumer alert When Minutes Matter: Choosing a Pre-paid Phone Card. The alert is also available in Spanish, at Cuando cada minuto cuenta: Cómo elegir una tarjeta telefónica prepagada.

The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a new video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

(FYI pre-paid phone cards)

Contact Information

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: