Skip to main content

FTC Order Protects Consumers in U.S. Market for Eye Care Drug Used in Cataract Surgery

Novartis Must Sell Assets to Bausch & Lomb After Acquiring Alcon

Novartis AG will be required to sell an injectable eye care drug used in cataract surgery as part of a settlement which resolves Federal Trade Commission charges that Novartis’s proposed acquisition of Alcon, Inc., would be anticompetitive. Novartis and Alcon are the only two U.S. providers of the class of drugs known as injectable miotics, and the FTC alleges that the acquisition would have created a monopoly in injectable miotics. The settlement requires Novartis to sell its drug Miochol-E to Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

Injectable miotics are a class of prescription drugs used to induce miosis, or constriction of the pupil. Primarily surgeons use miotics during cataract surgery to shrink the pupil, which helps them determine whether a rupture has occurred in the eye. The only two miotics products in the market are Miochol-E, owned by Novartis, and Miostat, owned by Alcon. U.S. sales of injectable miotics totaled $12.4 million in 2009, and Novartis and Alcon have shares of 67 percent and 33 percent respectively.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Novartis’s acquisition of Alcon would harm consumers, who have in the past benefitted from the direct competition between Novartis and Alcon. If Novartis were allowed to purchase Miochol-E consumers of injectable miotics likely would face higher prices, according to the FTC.

To preserve competition, the settlement requires Novartis to sell the rights and assets related to Miochol-E to Bausch & Lomb (B&L) within 10 days of when the acquisition is consummated. The FTC believes B&L, which is a major international eye-health company, is well-positioned to manufacture and market Miochol-E and compete effectively against Novartis.

Also under the settlement order, Novartis must provide transitional services to ensure that the divestiture to B&L is successful and must transfer its third-party manufacturing arrangements for Miochol-E to B&L as part of the sale. Novartis also must provide technical assistance to help B&L implement procedures to other parts of the manufacturing process. The FTC has appointed Karl L. Hoffman of Rondaxe Pharma to oversee the transfer of the assets to B&L and ensure that Novartis complies with the terms of the order.

The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 4-0-1, with Commissioner William E. Kovacic recused. The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until September 16, 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/novartis.

International Cooperation

During the FTC’s investigation, staff communicated and cooperated with enforcement counterparts in Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the European Commission (EC) that also reviewed this proposed transaction. This cooperation was conducted pursuant to the respective bilateral cooperation agreements with these jurisdictions and, in the case of the EC, the 2002 Best Practices on Cooperation in Merger Investigations.

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 antitrust@ftc.gov, 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.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Mitchell J. Katz
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161
STAFF CONTACT:
Kari A. Wallace
Bureau of Competition
202-326-3085

(FTC File No. 101-0068)
(Novartis.final.wpd)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...