Earlier this year, we covered the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which held that a state regulatory board composed of “active market participants” was not immune to federal...more
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That State Action Immunity Does Not Apply to State Boards If the Board Is Controlled by Active Market Participants - On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a state...more
In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that a regulatory board made up of market participants is exempt from...more
Federal and state courts are expected to rule on several nationally watched antitrust health care cases during the first half of 2015. As we enter into the first week of the New Year, Nexsen Pruet associate Rachel...more
After nearly two decades of silence on the state action doctrine, on October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Court’s second case on the subject in two years: The North Carolina Board of...more
On October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could have significant implications for hybrid public/private “regulatory” bodies. Many such bodies, like state and local wine...more
Which exercise of safeguarding the people will prevail: a State’s regulation of professionals providing services to its citizens, or the antitrust agencies’ protection of consumers against anticompetitive conduct? The United...more
The Supreme Court has a renewed interest in the state action doctrine. After declining to clarify what types of state action are exempt from federal antitrust scrutiny for years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear its second...more
In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...more
In a closely watched decision, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has reversed an 11th Circuit decision that invoked the state action doctrine to prevent the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from challenging a state hospital...more
Last week a unanimous Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., addressing the "State action" exemption from application of the federal antitrust laws for the first time...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on February 19th scaled back the "state action immunity" doctrine, siding with the Federal Trade Commission on an issue that had divided the lower courts and holding that a county Hospital Authority's...more
On February 19, 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the effective acquisition of Palmyra Medical Center (“Palmyra”) by Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (“PPHS") in Southwestern Georgia was not immune from antitrust...more
On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found that a merger of two Georgia hospitals was not immune from federal antitrust laws under the "state-action" exemption, reversing a decision of the...more
On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court reined in the state action immunity doctrine, which exempts municipalities from scrutiny under the federal antitrust laws when they act pursuant to a “clearly articulated state...more
In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court this week tightened the standard for state action immunity under federal antitrust laws in a case involving a hospital merger. This decision arguably tightens the reins on the...more
Recent major regulatory and technological developments have brought forth historic changes to the health care market. Health care providers have responded to these developments in several ways. One such mechanism, hospital...more
Holding in Phoebe Putney case narrowly construes state-action exemption to antitrust laws. On February 19, in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a...more
In a unanimous decision issued on February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state-action doctrine did not immunize Phoebe Putney Health System’s acquisition of Palmyra Park Hospital in Albany, Georgia.1 The...more
In one of the most closely watched healthcare antitrust cases in years, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the FTC merger challenge to a Georgia hospital merger, Phoebe Putney Health System’s acquisition of Palmyra...more
The Supreme Court decision in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., makes clear that state action immunity from federal antitrust laws is disfavored, and local governmental, quasi-public and private entities can only...more
On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a local hospital authority’s acquisition of a hospital in Georgia was not immunized from the antitrust laws under the state action doctrine. In doing so, the...more