FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case

The Federal Trade Commission today announced it will not continue with administrative litigation challenging Western Refining, Inc.’s acquisition of Giant Industries, Inc. The vote to dismiss the administrative complaint was 3-2, with the Commission majority issuing a statement explaining its reasons for dismissal, and Commissioners Pamela Jones Harbour and J. Thomas Rosch issuing a separate dissenting statement. The statements are available on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release.

The Commission voted to challenge the proposed acquisition in April 2007, filing complaints before both a federal district court and an FTC administrative law judge. The case subsequently was heard before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, which denied the Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Commission then filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denied the motion. On June 7, 2007, the matter was withdrawn from administrative litigation in order to permit the Commission to assess the public interest in further proceedings.

The Commission based its decision to discontinue administrative litigation on application of the criteria set forth in the agency’s Policy Statement Regarding Administrative Merger Litigation Following the Denial of a Preliminary Injunction. These criteria are: (1) the factual findings and legal conclusions of the district court or any appellate court; (2) any new evidence developed during the course of the preliminary injunction proceeding; (3) whether the transaction raises important issues of fact, law, or merger policy that need resolution in administrative proceedings; (4) an overall assessment of the costs and benefits of further proceedings; and (5) any other matter that bears on whether it would be in the public interest to proceed with the merger challenge.

The statement notes the Commission’s strong disagreement with the district court’s view of the facts of this case and with many of its legal conclusions. After weighing all relevant factors, however, the Commission concluded that “continuing to pursue the case would not be in the public interest.” For example, according to the statement, “it does not appear that the record before the district court was deficient in any serious respect . . . and it does not appear that the Commission was prevented from presenting any important evidence regarding the potential impact of the merger.” In addition, new facts that came to light during discovery leading to the preliminary injunction hearing suggest opportunities for new bulk suppliers to deliver gasoline to the Albuquerque area, thereby increasing competition and lowering gasoline prices in Northern New Mexico. The Commission further concluded that the transaction does not raise important issues of fact, law, or merger policy that need resolution in administrative proceedings.

According to the Commission statement, “The use of FTC resources is always an important consideration in determining whether to continue in administrative litigation. . . [W]e believe that an administrative proceeding would require substantially more resources, which should instead be reallocated to new competition matters, including in particular other gasoline matters.”

Commissioners Harbour and Rosch dissented from the decision to dismiss the administrative complaint. In their separate statement, they noted the significant factual and legal errors with the district court’s opinion dismissing the motion for a preliminary injunction. Those errors and the “paramount importance of ‘getting it right’ when gasoline refinery mergers are at issue” warranted a full plenary trial in their opinion. A full trial on the merits would have allowed a fuller analysis of complaint counsel’s allegations that Giant Industries had a unique ability and incentive to increase gasoline supply to Northern New Mexico, and that such increased supply would have resulted in lower gasoline prices in northern New Mexico – a market that has long experienced some of the higher gasoline prices in the continental United States. The district court’s opinion, issued only six weeks after the filing of the Commission’s complaint, failed to fully address these issues, the dissenting statement said. Specifically, the statement said, “We do not consider a preliminary injunction hearing to be any substitute for a plenary trial in this respect.”

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 394, 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Requires Conditions for Pilot Corporation’s Takeover of Flying J Inc.’s Travel Center Business
  2. FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case
  3. FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case
  4. FTC Sends Refund Checks Totaling More Than $700,000 to Consumers Who Lost Money in Robocall Scheme

FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case

The Federal Trade Commission today announced it will not continue with administrative litigation challenging Western Refining, Inc.’s acquisition of Giant Industries, Inc. The vote to dismiss the administrative complaint was 3-2, with the Commission majority issuing a statement explaining its reasons for dismissal, and Commissioners Pamela Jones Harbour and J. Thomas Rosch issuing a separate dissenting statement. The statements are available on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release.

The Commission voted to challenge the proposed acquisition in April 2007, filing complaints before both a federal district court and an FTC administrative law judge. The case subsequently was heard before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, which denied the Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Commission then filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denied the motion. On June 7, 2007, the matter was withdrawn from administrative litigation in order to permit the Commission to assess the public interest in further proceedings.

The Commission based its decision to discontinue administrative litigation on application of the criteria set forth in the agency’s Policy Statement Regarding Administrative Merger Litigation Following the Denial of a Preliminary Injunction. These criteria are: (1) the factual findings and legal conclusions of the district court or any appellate court; (2) any new evidence developed during the course of the preliminary injunction proceeding; (3) whether the transaction raises important issues of fact, law, or merger policy that need resolution in administrative proceedings; (4) an overall assessment of the costs and benefits of further proceedings; and (5) any other matter that bears on whether it would be in the public interest to proceed with the merger challenge.

The statement notes the Commission’s strong disagreement with the district court’s view of the facts of this case and with many of its legal conclusions. After weighing all relevant factors, however, the Commission concluded that “continuing to pursue the case would not be in the public interest.” For example, according to the statement, “it does not appear that the record before the district court was deficient in any serious respect . . . and it does not appear that the Commission was prevented from presenting any important evidence regarding the potential impact of the merger.” In addition, new facts that came to light during discovery leading to the preliminary injunction hearing suggest opportunities for new bulk suppliers to deliver gasoline to the Albuquerque area, thereby increasing competition and lowering gasoline prices in Northern New Mexico. The Commission further concluded that the transaction does not raise important issues of fact, law, or merger policy that need resolution in administrative proceedings.

According to the Commission statement, “The use of FTC resources is always an important consideration in determining whether to continue in administrative litigation. . . [W]e believe that an administrative proceeding would require substantially more resources, which should instead be reallocated to new competition matters, including in particular other gasoline matters.”

Commissioners Harbour and Rosch dissented from the decision to dismiss the administrative complaint. In their separate statement, they noted the significant factual and legal errors with the district court’s opinion dismissing the motion for a preliminary injunction. Those errors and the “paramount importance of ‘getting it right’ when gasoline refinery mergers are at issue” warranted a full plenary trial in their opinion. A full trial on the merits would have allowed a fuller analysis of complaint counsel’s allegations that Giant Industries had a unique ability and incentive to increase gasoline supply to Northern New Mexico, and that such increased supply would have resulted in lower gasoline prices in northern New Mexico – a market that has long experienced some of the higher gasoline prices in the continental United States. The district court’s opinion, issued only six weeks after the filing of the Commission’s complaint, failed to fully address these issues, the dissenting statement said. Specifically, the statement said, “We do not consider a preliminary injunction hearing to be any substitute for a plenary trial in this respect.”

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 394, 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Requires Conditions for Pilot Corporation’s Takeover of Flying J Inc.’s Travel Center Business
  2. FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case
  3. FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case
  4. FTC Sends Refund Checks Totaling More Than $700,000 to Consumers Who Lost Money in Robocall Scheme

FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case

The Federal Trade Commission today announced it will not continue with administrative litigation challenging Western Refining, Inc.’s acquisition of Giant Industries, Inc. The vote to dismiss the administrative complaint was 3-2, with the Commission majority issuing a statement explaining its reasons for dismissal, and Commissioners Pamela Jones Harbour and J. Thomas Rosch issuing a separate dissenting statement. The statements are available on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release.

The Commission voted to challenge the proposed acquisition in April 2007, filing complaints before both a federal district court and an FTC administrative law judge. The case subsequently was heard before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, which denied the Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Commission then filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, which denied the motion. On June 7, 2007, the matter was withdrawn from administrative litigation in order to permit the Commission to assess the public interest in further proceedings.

The Commission based its decision to discontinue administrative litigation on application of the criteria set forth in the agency’s Policy Statement Regarding Administrative Merger Litigation Following the Denial of a Preliminary Injunction. These criteria are: (1) the factual findings and legal conclusions of the district court or any appellate court; (2) any new evidence developed during the course of the preliminary injunction proceeding; (3) whether the transaction raises important issues of fact, law, or merger policy that need resolution in administrative proceedings; (4) an overall assessment of the costs and benefits of further proceedings; and (5) any other matter that bears on whether it would be in the public interest to proceed with the merger challenge.

The statement notes the Commission’s strong disagreement with the district court’s view of the facts of this case and with many of its legal conclusions. After weighing all relevant factors, however, the Commission concluded that “continuing to pursue the case would not be in the public interest.” For example, according to the statement, “it does not appear that the record before the district court was deficient in any serious respect . . . and it does not appear that the Commission was prevented from presenting any important evidence regarding the potential impact of the merger.” In addition, new facts that came to light during discovery leading to the preliminary injunction hearing suggest opportunities for new bulk suppliers to deliver gasoline to the Albuquerque area, thereby increasing competition and lowering gasoline prices in Northern New Mexico. The Commission further concluded that the transaction does not raise important issues of fact, law, or merger policy that need resolution in administrative proceedings.

According to the Commission statement, “The use of FTC resources is always an important consideration in determining whether to continue in administrative litigation. . . [W]e believe that an administrative proceeding would require substantially more resources, which should instead be reallocated to new competition matters, including in particular other gasoline matters.”

Commissioners Harbour and Rosch dissented from the decision to dismiss the administrative complaint. In their separate statement, they noted the significant factual and legal errors with the district court’s opinion dismissing the motion for a preliminary injunction. Those errors and the “paramount importance of ‘getting it right’ when gasoline refinery mergers are at issue” warranted a full plenary trial in their opinion. A full trial on the merits would have allowed a fuller analysis of complaint counsel’s allegations that Giant Industries had a unique ability and incentive to increase gasoline supply to Northern New Mexico, and that such increased supply would have resulted in lower gasoline prices in northern New Mexico – a market that has long experienced some of the higher gasoline prices in the continental United States. The district court’s opinion, issued only six weeks after the filing of the Commission’s complaint, failed to fully address these issues, the dissenting statement said. Specifically, the statement said, “We do not consider a preliminary injunction hearing to be any substitute for a plenary trial in this respect.”

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 394, 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Requires Conditions for Pilot Corporation’s Takeover of Flying J Inc.’s Travel Center Business
  2. FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case
  3. FTC Ends Administrative Litigation in Western Refining Case
  4. FTC Sends Refund Checks Totaling More Than $700,000 to Consumers Who Lost Money in Robocall Scheme

FTC Charges Marketers of Debt Meltdown Program with Allegedly Failing to Deliver Promised Debt Reduction Services

The Federal Trade Commission today charged four companies and their principals, Miriam and Robert Lovinger, with deceptively marketing a “debt settlement” operation that allegedly failed to provide services it claimed would reduce consumers’ debt, resulting in even more debt for many consumers. The FTC has requested an expedited hearing for a temporary restraining order.

According to the FTC’s complaint, since at least 2000 the defendants have sold debt settlement services through the Web sites idebthelp.com, moneycares.com, edgesolutions.com, and ontrackmpower.com, offering a “Debt Meltdown Program” they describe as “an aggressive method of helping consumers out of the debt trap and away from the bankruptcy path.” They claim they will negotiate with creditors to enable consumers “to escape debt at a fraction of the total amount they owe,” that consumers end up repaying only “60 cents for every dollar that is owed,” and that “we can reduce your unsecured debt by up to 60 percent and sometimes more and have you debt free in 18 to 30 months.”

The complaint alleges that consumers who call the defendants’ toll-free number are told that the defendants will obtain settlements that will substantially reduce their debt. The defendants allegedly promise to negotiate with creditors and begin making payments to them within several weeks after consumers join their program, and to provide personalized financial counseling. As noted in the complaint, consumers allegedly are told to set up a direct debit from their checking account for deposit into a bank account established by the defendants, who will debit their fees and pay creditors. They also are told to have no further contact with their creditors, and to stop paying them immediately, enabling the defendants to negotiate for them.

The defendants allegedly often fail to contact each creditor as promised, and consumers often continue hearing from creditors about their debts. According to the complaint, in someinstances the defendants fail to negotiate settlements with all of consumers’ creditors and don’t pay them, resulting in wage garnishment or debt collection agency action. When consumers tell the defendants that they have received a creditor’s summons, they allegedly are told not to worry, that it is just a “scare tactic.” In some instances, the complaint states, creditors sue these consumers, who have to pay the cost of the creditors’ litigation.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of being in the defendants’ program, many consumers experience substantially increased debt because of late fees, finance charges, and overdraft charges, and suffer damage to their credit rating because of significant negative information such as late payments, charge-offs, collections, and garnishments, all of which may appear on their credit report for up to seven years.

The defendants are charged with violating the FTC Act by allegedly misrepresenting that consumers who purchase their services will be able to pay off all of their debts referred to the defendants’ program for a substantially reduced amount, that the defendants will negotiate settlements with creditors and begin paying them within several weeks after consumers join the program, and that they will provide one-on-one financial consulting.

On October 4, the court will hold a hearing requiring the defendants to show cause why a temporary restraining order barring misrepresentations, appointing a temporary receiver, and freezing the assets of Edge Solutions, Inc. of Delaware, Edge Solutions Inc. of New York, and Money Cares, Inc., all a/k/a The Debt Settlement Company and a/k/a The Debt Elimination Center; Pay Help, Inc.; and Miriam Lovinger and Robert Lovinger should not be entered. The FTC will seek to permanently bar the defendants from further violations and make them forfeit their ill-gotten gains.

The FTC thanks its partner, the Better Business Bureau Serving Metropolitan New York, for its assistance in bringing this case.

By a 5-0 vote, the Commission approved the filing of the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which occurred on October 1, 2007.

NOTE: The Commission files 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 complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

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 1,600 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Releases Staff Perspective Examining Informational Injuries
  2. Deceptive Marketers Banned from Selling Mortgage Relief Services; One Defendant Ordered to Pay $11.5 Million
  3. Coming in 2011: New Labels for Light Bulb Packaging
  4. FTC Closes its Investigation of Google AdMob Deal

FTC To Host Social Security Number Workshop

On December 10 and 11, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission will host a public workshop, “Security in Numbers: SSNs and ID Theft,” to explore the uses of Social Security numbers in the private sector and the role of SSNs in identity theft. The workshop will provide a forum for public-sector, private-sector, and consumer representatives to discuss the various uses of SSNs by the private sector, the necessity of those uses, alternatives available, the challenges faced by the private sector in moving away from using SSNs, and how SSNs are obtained and used by identity thieves. The workshop will be free and open to the public.

In April 2007, the President’s Identity Theft Task Force, co-chaired by FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, recommended that Task Force agencies develop a comprehensive record of SSN use by the private sector and evaluate the necessity of those uses. The Task Force report, www.idtheft.gov/reports/StrategicPlan.pdf, recognized that a thorough examination would help policymakers and the private sector find ways to limit the unnecessary use of SSNs, which frequently are used to commit identity theft. In response to the Task Force recommendation, the Commission already has invited interested parties to comment on the various issues surrounding private sector uses of SSNs. Over 300 comments were received from a broad array of stakeholders. Those comments can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ssnprivatesector/index.shtm.

The Workshop will be held at the FTC’s satellite building conference center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. A government-issued photo ID is required for entry. Members of the public and press who wish to participate but who cannot attend can view a live Webcast of the summit on the FTC’s Web site. Although pre-registration is not required, interested parties may pre-register by contacting [email protected].

The Commission invites interested parties to submit requests to be workshop panelists. The requests should be submitted electronically to [email protected] on or before October 19, 2007. Interested parties should include a statement detailing their expertise on the issues to be addressed at the workshop and provide complete contact information. The Commission will select panelists based on expertise and the need to represent a range of views about the issues. Panelists selected to participate will be notified by November 9, 2007.

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 1,600 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Staff: No Objection to Rule Change Proposed by National Accounting Group
  2. Statement by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz Regarding Continuing Need for Legislation Banning Illegal Pay-for-Delay Drug Settlements
  3. Telemarketers Pay $505,000 & Forfeit $1,030,000 in Uncashed Checks and Unpaid Invoices
  4. Commission Approves Issuance of FY2006 HSR Premerger Notification Report

FTC To Host Social Security Number Workshop

On December 10 and 11, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission will host a public workshop, “Security in Numbers: SSNs and ID Theft,” to explore the uses of Social Security numbers in the private sector and the role of SSNs in identity theft. The workshop will provide a forum for public-sector, private-sector, and consumer representatives to discuss the various uses of SSNs by the private sector, the necessity of those uses, alternatives available, the challenges faced by the private sector in moving away from using SSNs, and how SSNs are obtained and used by identity thieves. The workshop will be free and open to the public.

In April 2007, the President’s Identity Theft Task Force, co-chaired by FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras, recommended that Task Force agencies develop a comprehensive record of SSN use by the private sector and evaluate the necessity of those uses. The Task Force report, www.idtheft.gov/reports/StrategicPlan.pdf, recognized that a thorough examination would help policymakers and the private sector find ways to limit the unnecessary use of SSNs, which frequently are used to commit identity theft. In response to the Task Force recommendation, the Commission already has invited interested parties to comment on the various issues surrounding private sector uses of SSNs. Over 300 comments were received from a broad array of stakeholders. Those comments can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ssnprivatesector/index.shtm.

The Workshop will be held at the FTC’s satellite building conference center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. A government-issued photo ID is required for entry. Members of the public and press who wish to participate but who cannot attend can view a live Webcast of the summit on the FTC’s Web site. Although pre-registration is not required, interested parties may pre-register by contacting [email protected].

The Commission invites interested parties to submit requests to be workshop panelists. The requests should be submitted electronically to [email protected] on or before October 19, 2007. Interested parties should include a statement detailing their expertise on the issues to be addressed at the workshop and provide complete contact information. The Commission will select panelists based on expertise and the need to represent a range of views about the issues. Panelists selected to participate will be notified by November 9, 2007.

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 1,600 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Staff: No Objection to Rule Change Proposed by National Accounting Group
  2. Statement by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz Regarding Continuing Need for Legislation Banning Illegal Pay-for-Delay Drug Settlements
  3. Telemarketers Pay $505,000 & Forfeit $1,030,000 in Uncashed Checks and Unpaid Invoices
  4. Commission Approves Issuance of FY2006 HSR Premerger Notification Report

FTC Announces Recent Efforts to Combat Fraud Targeting Hispanics

The Federal Trade Commission will hold a press briefing to describe recent efforts to combat fraud targeting Spanish speakers, including recent law enforcement actions, a work-at-home ad review, and consumer and media outreach.

An FTC official will outline the FTC’s efforts and answer questions from the press. A consumer will recount her experience with an alleged work-at-home scam and answer questions.

 

WHO: Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection
A consumer guest
WHEN: October 4, 2007
10:00 a.m.
WHERE: Federal Trade Commission, Room 432
600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC, 20580
PRESS CONTACT: Jackie Dizdul, FTC, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2472

Reporters interested in attending the press conference will be permitted access to Room 432 at 9:30 a.m. Reporters unable to attend may access the press conference by calling:

1-866-363-9013
Chairperson: Gail Kingsland
Conference ID number: 19598441
The lines will open at 9:45 a.m.
CALL-IN LINES ARE FOR PRESS ONLY

FTC staff will be available for Spanish-language interviews.

In addition, the press conference will be webcast. The site with live streaming video can be accessed by clicking here.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Staff: No Objection to Rule Change Proposed by National Accounting Group
  2. Statement by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz Regarding Continuing Need for Legislation Banning Illegal Pay-for-Delay Drug Settlements
  3. Telemarketers Pay $505,000 & Forfeit $1,030,000 in Uncashed Checks and Unpaid Invoices
  4. Commission Approves Issuance of FY2006 HSR Premerger Notification Report

FTC Announces Recent Efforts to Combat Fraud Targeting Hispanics

The Federal Trade Commission will hold a press briefing to describe recent efforts to combat fraud targeting Spanish speakers, including recent law enforcement actions, a work-at-home ad review, and consumer and media outreach.

An FTC official will outline the FTC’s efforts and answer questions from the press. A consumer will recount her experience with an alleged work-at-home scam and answer questions.

 

WHO: Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection
A consumer guest
WHEN: October 4, 2007
10:00 a.m.
WHERE: Federal Trade Commission, Room 432
600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC, 20580
PRESS CONTACT: Jackie Dizdul, FTC, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2472

Reporters interested in attending the press conference will be permitted access to Room 432 at 9:30 a.m. Reporters unable to attend may access the press conference by calling:

1-866-363-9013
Chairperson: Gail Kingsland
Conference ID number: 19598441
The lines will open at 9:45 a.m.
CALL-IN LINES ARE FOR PRESS ONLY

FTC staff will be available for Spanish-language interviews.

In addition, the press conference will be webcast. The site with live streaming video can be accessed by clicking here.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Staff: No Objection to Rule Change Proposed by National Accounting Group
  2. Statement by FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz Regarding Continuing Need for Legislation Banning Illegal Pay-for-Delay Drug Settlements
  3. Telemarketers Pay $505,000 & Forfeit $1,030,000 in Uncashed Checks and Unpaid Invoices
  4. Commission Approves Issuance of FY2006 HSR Premerger Notification Report

FTC Approves Filing of Staff Comments with Massachusetts Department of Public Health

Commission approval of filing of staff comments: The Commission has approved the filing of comments by the staff of the Office of Policy Planning and the Bureaus of Economics, Competition, and Consumer Protection with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) regarding proposed limited service clinic (LSC) regulations. The comments were developed in response to a DPH request for public testimony on its recently proposed regulations for the licensing of LSCs – sometimes referred to as retail clinics. LSCs tend to provide a limited menu of basic health care and triage services and often are staffed chiefly by licensed nurse practitioners. They also tend to offer longer operating hours, shorter wait-times, and sometimes lower fees than traditional clinics and physician practices.

The FTC staff comments state that such clinics might expand access to basic health care services for certain consumers and might spur price or quality competition with more traditional clinics or physician practices. Therefore, DPH’s proposal to permit them is commendable. The comments also state that the agency’s proposal of regulatory flexibility “might be especially helpful in an emerging market, as health care providers explore different ways to deliver basic care on a competitive basis.” At the same time, however, the comments state that the proposed requirement that all LSC advertising be pre-approved by the DPH “may be overly restrictive,” and recommends that it be struck from the regulations.

The FTC vote approving the filing of the staff comments was 5-0. Copies of the comments can be found as a link to this press release on the Commission’s Web site. (FTC File No. V070015; the staff contact is Daniel J. Gilman, Office of Policy Planning, 202-326-3136.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in K-Dur Antitrust Litigation Urging Reversal of Pay-for-Delay Ruling
  2. FTC Dismisses Complaint in LabCorp
  3. FTC, HHS Office of Inspector General, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Announce Workshop on Issues Related to Accountable Care Organizations
  4. FTC Submits Testimony to Alaska House of Representatives Regarding Bill That Would Amend States Certificate of Need Laws

FTC Approves Filing of Staff Comments with Massachusetts Department of Public Health

Commission approval of filing of staff comments: The Commission has approved the filing of comments by the staff of the Office of Policy Planning and the Bureaus of Economics, Competition, and Consumer Protection with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) regarding proposed limited service clinic (LSC) regulations. The comments were developed in response to a DPH request for public testimony on its recently proposed regulations for the licensing of LSCs – sometimes referred to as retail clinics. LSCs tend to provide a limited menu of basic health care and triage services and often are staffed chiefly by licensed nurse practitioners. They also tend to offer longer operating hours, shorter wait-times, and sometimes lower fees than traditional clinics and physician practices.

The FTC staff comments state that such clinics might expand access to basic health care services for certain consumers and might spur price or quality competition with more traditional clinics or physician practices. Therefore, DPH’s proposal to permit them is commendable. The comments also state that the agency’s proposal of regulatory flexibility “might be especially helpful in an emerging market, as health care providers explore different ways to deliver basic care on a competitive basis.” At the same time, however, the comments state that the proposed requirement that all LSC advertising be pre-approved by the DPH “may be overly restrictive,” and recommends that it be struck from the regulations.

The FTC vote approving the filing of the staff comments was 5-0. Copies of the comments can be found as a link to this press release on the Commission’s Web site. (FTC File No. V070015; the staff contact is Daniel J. Gilman, Office of Policy Planning, 202-326-3136.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site 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.

Related posts:

  1. FTC Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in K-Dur Antitrust Litigation Urging Reversal of Pay-for-Delay Ruling
  2. FTC Dismisses Complaint in LabCorp
  3. FTC, HHS Office of Inspector General, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Announce Workshop on Issues Related to Accountable Care Organizations
  4. FTC Submits Testimony to Alaska House of Representatives Regarding Bill That Would Amend States Certificate of Need Laws