Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment. The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order from Metagenics, Inc. and its officer and director, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order. On August 16, 1994, the Commission issued a complaint against respondents, alleging that they made deceptive claims in advertisements for Bone Builder, a calcium supplement. After an administrative trial, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on October 22, 1996, from which both complaint counsel and respondents filed notices of appeal. On January 7, 1997, the Commission granted a Joint Motion to Withdraw from Adjudication to consider the proposed consent agreement in this case. The Commission has issued an amended complaint, clarifying some of the allegations in the August 16, 1994, complaint. The amended complaint alleges that respondents represented without substantiation that post-menopausal women who have already lost bone and who use Bone Builder will experience no additional bone loss and will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone lost; that users of Bone Builder will not experience bone loss or osteoporosis; that Bone Builder restores bone strength; that Bone Builder reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments; and that Bone Builder is more bioavailable, more absorbable, or more effectively utilized by the body than other forms of calcium or is more effective than other forms of calcium in the prevention or treatment of bone ailments. The amended complaint also states that respondents relied upon a reasonable basis to substantiate that adequate calcium intake has many benefits and is one of the essential factors in the body’s ongoing process of removal of old bone and replacement by new bone; in conjunction with other factors, adequate calcium intake can play a significant role in reducing the rate of bone loss or bone thinning and in protecting bone strength; and individuals who do not consume adequate calcium are at greater risk of experiencing bone fractures than those who do. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy the violations charged and to prevent respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. In advertising or selling any food, drug, or supplement, Part I of the order requires respondents to rely on competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any claim that post-menopausal women who have lost bone and who use the product will experience no additional bone loss or will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone loss or that users of the product will not experience bone loss. Part I requires the same level of substantiation for any claim that a food, drug, or supplement restores bone strength, reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments, or is superior to any other form of calcium in bioavailability, absorbability, utilization by the body, or treatment or prevention of bone ailments. In advertising or selling any food drug, or supplement, Part II forbids respondents from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions or interpretations of any test or study. In making claims regarding the relationship between calcium and osteoporosis, Part III requires respondents to limit themselves to the health claims authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, as set forth in 58 Fed. Reg. 2665 (1993), or to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims. Part IV requires respondents to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support health-related claims for products containing calcium, and to have scientific substantiation for health-related superiority claims for any food, drug, or supplement. Part V allow respondents to make representations that are specifically permitted by FDA regulations promulgated pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Part VI allows respondents to make any claim for a drug that is permitted in labeling for that drug under any tentative or final FDA standard or under any FDA-approved new drug application Parts VII through X relate to respondents' obligations to make available to the Commission materials substantiating claims covered by the order; to notify the Commission of changes in Metagenics’s corporate structure; to notify the Commission of changes in Xx. Xxxxx’x employment or business affiliations; and to provide copies of the orders to certain Metagenics personnel. Part XI provides that the order will terminate after twenty years under certain circumstances. Part XII requires respondents to file periodic compliance reports with the Commission.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: www.ftc.gov
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment. The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, accepted an agreement to a proposed consent order from MetagenicsBodyWell, Inc. and its officer and directorBodyWell, Xxxxxxx XxxxxInc.’s officer, Xxxxxx du Passage ("respondents"). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement’s proposed order. On August 16The Commission’s complaint in this matter charges respondents with deceptively advertising Slimming Soles, 1994insoles worn in the shoes that purportedly cause weight loss through "reflexology," without changes in diet or exercise. According to advertisements for the product, the Commission issued Slimming Soles purportedly cause weight loss by massaging certain "reflex points" on the bottom of the foot during the course of a normal day’s walking, thereby stimulating the body’s digestive system to burn stored fat and cause weight loss. Advertisements for the product appeared in newspapers such as the Denver Post and in the National Enquirer , in newspaper inserts, in magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Woman’s Day as well as in nationwide direct mailings. The complaint against respondentsalleges that, alleging through the product name "Slimming Soles" and the advertisements, respondents made unsubstantiated representations that they made deceptive claims the Slimming Soles cause significant weight loss; that the weight loss occurs without changes in advertisements for Bone Builderdiet or exercise; and that consumers using the Slimming Soles will lose 13 to 16 pounds within six weeks, a calcium supplementwithout changes in diet or exercise. After an administrative trialAccording to the complaint, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on October 22ads also claimed, 1996without adequate substantiation, from which both that the consumer testimonials in the ads reflect the typical or ordinary experience of people who have used the product. The complaint counsel and also alleges that respondents filed notices of appealfalsely represented that scientific studies demonstrate that the Slimming Soles cause significant weight loss, including 13 to 16 pounds within six weeks, without changes in diet or exercise. On January 7, 1997In addition, the Commission granted a Joint Motion to Withdraw from Adjudication to consider the proposed consent agreement in this case. The Commission has issued an amended complaint, clarifying some of the allegations in the August 16, 1994, complaint. The amended complaint alleges that respondents falsely represented without substantiation that post-menopausal women who have already lost bone and who use Bone Builder will experience no additional bone loss and will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone lost; that users of Bone Builder will not experience bone loss or osteoporosis; that Bone Builder restores bone strength; that Bone Builder reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments; and that Bone Builder is more bioavailable, more absorbable, or more effectively utilized by the body than other forms of calcium or is more effective than other forms of calcium in the prevention or treatment of bone ailments. The amended complaint also states that respondents relied upon product would be delivered to purchasers within a reasonable basis period of time. In fact, the complaint alleges, in numerous instances the Soles sold to substantiate that adequate calcium intake has many benefits and is one purchasers were not delivered to those purchasers within a reasonable period of the essential factors in the body’s ongoing process of removal of old bone and replacement by new bone; in conjunction with other factors, adequate calcium intake can play a significant role in reducing the rate of bone loss or bone thinning and in protecting bone strength; and individuals who do not consume adequate calcium are at greater risk of experiencing bone fractures than those who dotime. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy the violations charged and to prevent respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. In advertising or selling any food, drug, or supplement, Part I of the order requires respondents to rely on possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any claim that postany product causes weight loss, with or without changes in diet or exercise, causes weight loss at any particular rate or speed, or within any time period, or provides any weight loss, fat loss, weight regulation, weight control or weight maintenance benefit. Part II prohibits respondents from using the name "Slimming Soles" or any other name in a manner that represents that any product causes weight loss, unless they possess competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representation. Part III prohibits respondents from claiming that the experience represented in any user-menopausal women who have lost bone and testimonial or endorsement of any food, dietary supplement, drug, device, or weight loss product or program represents the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use the product will experience no additional bone loss or will achieve a growth of new bone greater than program, unless, at the amount of bone loss time, they possess and rely upon competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating the representation or they disclose, clearly and prominently, and in close proximity to the testimonial or endorsement, what the generally expected results would be or that users of the product will consumers should not expect to experience bone losssimilar results. Part I requires the same level of substantiation for any claim that a food, drug, or supplement restores bone strength, reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments, or is superior to any other form of calcium in bioavailability, absorbability, utilization by the body, or treatment or prevention of bone ailments. In advertising or selling any food drug, or supplement, Part II forbids IV prohibits respondents from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions or interpretations of any test test, study or studyresearch in connection with the sale of any food, dietary supplement, drug, device, or weight loss product or program. In making claims regarding Part V prohibits respondents from violating the relationship between calcium and osteoporosisMail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, which, among other things, requires that purchasers be notified if the products are not delivered in a timely fashion. Part III VI requires respondents to limit themselves deposit $100,000 into an escrow account, which will be used by the Commission to provide either direct redress to purchasers of the Slimming Soles or will be paid to the health claims authorized by United States Treasury, if the Food and Drug Administration, as set forth in 58 FedCommission determines that direct redress to consumers is wholly or partially impracticable. Reg. 2665 (1993), or to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims. Part IV requires respondents to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support health-related claims for products containing calcium, and to have scientific substantiation for health-related superiority claims for any food, drug, or supplement. Part V allow respondents to make representations that are specifically permitted by FDA regulations promulgated pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Part VI allows respondents to make any claim for a drug that is permitted in labeling for that drug under any tentative or final FDA standard or under any FDA-approved new drug application Parts VII through X IX relate to respondents' ’ obligations to maintain and make available to the Commission materials substantiating claims covered by certain records; to provide copies of the orderorder to respondents’ personnel; and to notify the Commission of structural changes in Metagenics’s corporate structure; the corporation. Part X requires Xxxxxx du Passage to notify the Commission of changes in Xx. Xxxxx’x if he leaves his current employment or he affiliates with any new business affiliations; and or employment whose activities relate to provide copies the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion, offering for sale, sale or distribution of the orders to certain Metagenics personnelany dietary supplement, drug, device, or weight loss product or program for which any health or weight loss claim is made. Part XI requires respondents to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part XII provides that the order will terminate after twenty years years, under certain circumstances. Part XII requires respondents to file periodic compliance reports with the Commission.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: www.ftc.gov
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment. The Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order Agreement Containing Consent Order from MetagenicsMars Petcare US, Inc. and its officer and director, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx(‘‘respondent’’). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty thirty (6030) days for reception receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty thirty (6030) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement’s proposed order. On August 16This matter involves the advertising, 1994marketing, and sale by respondent of dog food under the Eukanuba brand. Respondent has marketed its Eukanuba brand dog foods through retail outlets. According to the FTC complaint, respondent claimed that its dog food could increase the longevity of dogs by 30 percent or more. Specifically, the Commission issued a complaint against respondents, alleging that they made deceptive claims in advertisements for Bone Builder, a calcium supplement. After an administrative trial, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on October 22, 1996, from which both complaint counsel and respondents filed notices of appeal. On January 7, 1997, the Commission granted a Joint Motion to Withdraw from Adjudication to consider the proposed consent agreement in this case. The Commission has issued an amended complaint, clarifying some of the allegations in the August 16, 1994, complaint. The amended FTC complaint alleges that respondents respondent represented without substantiation that postdogs in a ten-menopausal women who have already lost bone year study that were fed Eukanuba brand dog food and who use Bone Builder will experience no additional bone loss and will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone lost; that users of Bone Builder will not experience bone loss or osteoporosis; that Bone Builder restores bone strength; that Bone Builder reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments; and that Bone Builder is more bioavailable, more absorbable, received proper care lived exceptionally long lives—including 30 percent or more effectively utilized by the body longer than other forms of calcium or is more effective than other forms of calcium in the prevention or treatment of bone ailmentstheir typical lifespan. The amended complaint alleges that these claims are false or unsubstantiated and thus violate the FTC Act. The complaint also states alleges that respondents relied upon a reasonable basis respondent represented that scientific tests prove that feeding dogs its Eukanuba brand dog food can enable dogs to substantiate live exceptionally long lives or to live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan. The complaint alleges that adequate calcium intake has many benefits these claims are false and is one of thus violate the essential factors in the body’s ongoing process of removal of old bone and replacement by new bone; in conjunction with other factors, adequate calcium intake can play a significant role in reducing the rate of bone loss or bone thinning and in protecting bone strength; and individuals who do not consume adequate calcium are at greater risk of experiencing bone fractures than those who doFTC Act. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy the violations charged and to prevent respondents respondent from engaging in similar acts and or practices in the future. In advertising or selling any food, drug, or supplementSpecifically, Part I addresses the unsubstantiated claims alleged in the complaint. Part I prohibits respondent from making misleading or unsubstantiated representations that its Eukanuba-brand pet foods or any other pet food can enable dogs to live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan or live exceptionally long lives. It also prohibits respondent from making misleading or unsubstantiated claims regarding the health benefits of the order any pet food. It requires respondents to rely on that respondent possesses and relies upon ‘‘competent and reliable scientific evidence evidence’’ to support substantiate any claim that post-menopausal women who have lost bone and who use the product will experience no additional bone loss or will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone loss or that users such representation. Part II of the product will not experience bone lossproposed order addresses the allegedly false claims that scientific tests prove that feeding dogs respondent’s Eukanuba brand dog food can enable dogs to live 30 percent or more longer or substantially longer than their typical lifespan. Part I requires the same level of substantiation for II prohibits respondent, when advertising any claim that a pet food, drug, or supplement restores bone strength, reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments, or is superior to any other form of calcium in bioavailability, absorbability, utilization by the body, or treatment or prevention of bone ailments. In advertising or selling any food drug, or supplement, Part II forbids respondents from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions conclusions, or interpretations of any test test, study, or studyresearch, or misrepresenting that any health benefits of the pet food are scientifically proven. In making claims regarding Parts III–VI of the relationship between calcium proposed order contain compliance and osteoporosis, recordkeeping requirements. Part III requires respondents respondent acknowledge receipt of the order, to limit themselves provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the health claims authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, as set forth in 58 Fed. Reg. 2665 (1993), or to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claimsorder. Part IV requires respondents to possess competent the filing of compliance reports within one year after the order becomes final and reliable scientific evidence to support health-related claims for products containing calcium, and to have scientific substantiation for health-related superiority claims for within 14 days of any food, drug, or supplementchange in respondent that would affect compliance with the order. Part V allow respondents requires respondent to make representations that are specifically permitted by FDA regulations promulgated pursuant maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990order. Early Terminations Granted Part VI allows respondents requires respondent to make any claim for a drug that is permitted in labeling for that drug under any tentative or final FDA standard or under any FDA-approved new drug application Parts VII through X relate to respondents' obligations to make available to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission materials substantiating claims covered by the order; and to notify permit the Commission of changes in Metagenicsor its representatives to interview respondent’s corporate structure; to notify the Commission of changes in Xx. Xxxxx’x employment or business affiliations; and to provide copies of the orders to certain Metagenics personnel. Finally, Part XI VII provides that the order will terminate after twenty years under (20) years, with certain circumstancesexceptions. Part XII requires respondents The purpose of this analysis is to file periodic compliance reports with facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint and proposed order or to modify the proposed order’s terms in any way. By direction of the Commission.. Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016–18906 Filed 8–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules Section 7A of the Xxxxxxx Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Xxxx-Xxxxx- Xxxxxx Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register. The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period. April 1, 2016 thru April 30, 2016 04/01/2016 20160878 G
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: www.govinfo.gov
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment. The Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement to a proposed consent order Agreement Containing Consent Order from MetagenicsMars Petcare US, Inc. and its officer and director, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx(‘‘respondent’’). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty thirty (6030) days for reception receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty thirty (6030) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement’s proposed order. On August 16This matter involves the advertising, 1994marketing, and sale by respondent of dog food under the Eukanuba brand. Respondent has marketed its Eukanuba brand dog foods through retail outlets. According to the FTC complaint, respondent claimed that its dog food could increase the longevity of dogs by 30 percent or more. Specifically, the Commission issued a complaint against respondents, alleging that they made deceptive claims in advertisements for Bone Builder, a calcium supplement. After an administrative trial, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision on October 22, 1996, from which both complaint counsel and respondents filed notices of appeal. On January 7, 1997, the Commission granted a Joint Motion to Withdraw from Adjudication to consider the proposed consent agreement in this case. The Commission has issued an amended complaint, clarifying some of the allegations in the August 16, 1994, complaint. The amended FTC complaint alleges that respondents respondent represented without substantiation that postdogs in a ten-menopausal women who have already lost bone year study that were fed Eukanuba brand dog food and who use Bone Builder will experience no additional bone loss and will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone lost; that users of Bone Builder will not experience bone loss or osteoporosis; that Bone Builder restores bone strength; that Bone Builder reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments; and that Bone Builder is more bioavailable, more absorbable, received proper care lived exceptionally long lives—including 30 percent or more effectively utilized by the body longer than other forms of calcium or is more effective than other forms of calcium in the prevention or treatment of bone ailmentstheir typical lifespan. The amended complaint alleges that these claims are false or unsubstantiated and thus violate the FTC Act. The complaint also states alleges that respondents relied upon a reasonable basis respondent represented that scientific tests prove that feeding dogs its Eukanuba brand dog food can enable dogs to substantiate live exceptionally long lives or to live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan. The complaint alleges that adequate calcium intake has many benefits these claims are false and is one of thus violate the essential factors in the body’s ongoing process of removal of old bone and replacement by new bone; in conjunction with other factors, adequate calcium intake can play a significant role in reducing the rate of bone loss or bone thinning and in protecting bone strength; and individuals who do not consume adequate calcium are at greater risk of experiencing bone fractures than those who doFTC Act. The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy the violations charged and to prevent respondents respondent from engaging in similar acts and or practices in the future. In advertising or selling any food, drug, or supplementSpecifically, Part I addresses the unsubstantiated claims alleged in the complaint. Part I prohibits respondent from making misleading or unsubstantiated representations that its Eukanuba-brand pet foods or any other pet food can enable dogs to live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan or live exceptionally long lives. It also prohibits respondent from making misleading or unsubstantiated claims regarding the health benefits of the order any pet food. It requires respondents to rely on that respondent possesses and relies upon ‘‘competent and reliable scientific evidence evidence’’ to support substantiate any claim that post-menopausal women who have lost bone and who use the product will experience no additional bone loss or will achieve a growth of new bone greater than the amount of bone loss or that users such representation. Part II of the product will not experience bone lossproposed order addresses the allegedly false claims that scientific tests prove that feeding dogs respondent’s Eukanuba brand dog food can enable dogs to live 30 percent or more longer or substantially longer than their typical lifespan. Part I requires the same level of substantiation for II prohibits respondent, when advertising any claim that a pet food, drug, or supplement restores bone strength, reduces or eliminates pain associated with bone ailments, or is superior to any other form of calcium in bioavailability, absorbability, utilization by the body, or treatment or prevention of bone ailments. In advertising or selling any food drug, or supplement, Part II forbids respondents from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions conclusions, or interpretations of any test test, study, or studyresearch, or misrepresenting that any health benefits of the pet food are scientifically proven. In making claims regarding Parts III–VI of the relationship between calcium proposed order contain compliance and osteoporosis, recordkeeping requirements. Part III requires respondents respondent acknowledge receipt of the order, to limit themselves provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the health claims authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, as set forth in 58 Fed. Reg. 2665 (1993), or to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claimsorder. Part IV requires respondents to possess competent the filing of compliance reports within one year after the order becomes final and reliable scientific evidence to support health-related claims for products containing calcium, and to have scientific substantiation for health-related superiority claims for within 14 days of any food, drug, or supplementchange in respondent that would affect compliance with the order. Part V allow respondents requires respondent to make representations that are specifically permitted by FDA regulations promulgated pursuant maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990order. EARLY TERMINATIONS GRANTED Part VI allows respondents requires respondent to make any claim for a drug that is permitted in labeling for that drug under any tentative or final FDA standard or under any FDA-approved new drug application Parts VII through X relate to respondents' obligations to make available to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission materials substantiating claims covered by the order; and to notify permit the Commission of changes in Metagenicsor its representatives to interview respondent’s corporate structure; to notify the Commission of changes in Xx. Xxxxx’x employment or business affiliations; and to provide copies of the orders to certain Metagenics personnel. Finally, Part XI VII provides that the order will terminate after twenty years under (20) years, with certain circumstancesexceptions. Part XII requires respondents The purpose of this analysis is to file periodic compliance reports with facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint and proposed order or to modify the proposed order’s terms in any way. By direction of the Commission.. Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2016–18906 Filed 8–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules Section 7A of the Xxxxxxx Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Xxxx-Xxxxx- Xxxxxx Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register. The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period. April 1, 2016 thru April 30, 2016 04/01/2016 20160878 G
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: www.ftc.gov
