[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21218-21222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement
In the matter of: United States v. Oregon Dental Service.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment,
Settlement Agreement, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California in United States of America v. Oregon Dental Service, Civil
Action No. C95 1211 FMS. The Complaint in this case alleges that the
defendant and others engaged in a combination in unreasonable restraint
of interstate trade and commerce in violation of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. 1. The proposed Final Judgment enjoins the defendant for five
years from maintaining, adopting, or enforcing a clause in its
contracts with dentists that requires the dentist to give the defendant
the lowest fees he or she offers to any person or dental plan. It also
enjoins the defendant from taking any other action, directly or
indirectly, to influence or attempt to influence dentists' discounting
of fees or participation in other dental plans. Finally, the proposed
Final Judgment enjoins the defendant from disclosing or in any way
directly revealing to dentists its maximum allowable or acceptable fee
for dental procedures.
Public comment on the proposed Final Judgment is invited within the
statutory 60-day comment period, which runs from the date of this
notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the
Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed
to Christopher S. Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco Office, Box 36046,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco,
California 94102 (telephone: (415) 556-6300).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
Barbara J. Nelson, Philip R. Malone, Carla G. Addicks, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box
36046, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102-3478, (415) 556-
6300, Attorneys for the United States
In the United States District Court Northern District of California
[Civil No. C95 1211 FMS]
In the matter of: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Oregon
Dental Service, Defendant.
Complaint
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to
obtain equitable and other relief against the defendant named herein,
and complains and alleges as follows:
I. Jurisdiction and Venue
1. This Complaint is filed by the United States under Section 4 of
the Sherman Act; 15 U.S.C. 4, as amended, to prevent and restrain a
continuing violation by the defendant of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. 1.
2. The defendant maintains an office, transacts business, and is
found within the Northern District of California, within the meaning of
15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
II. Defendant
3. Oregon Dental Service (``ODS''), is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Oregon with its principal place
of business in Portland, Oregon. ODS provides dental coverage to
employees of Oregon corporations and others. Certain of those employees
are located in the Northern District of California.
4. ODS is a non-profit corporation whose participating providers
consist of dentists licensed to practice in Oregon and who execute
participating provider agreements with ODS. At material times, dentists
comprised the majority of the Board of Directors of ODS. At material
times, in excess of ninety percent of dentists licensed to practice in
Oregon were participating providers of ODS.
5. Various firms and individuals, not named as defendants in this
Complaint, have entered into agreements with ODS in violation of the
Sherman Act as alleged in this Complaint, and have performed acts and
made statements in furtherance thereof.
III. Trade and Commerce
6. At material times, ODS has engaged in the business of providing
dental insurance coverage. ODS contracts directly with individual
dentists and groups of dentists for the provision of dental services to
persons covered by ODS' dental insurance plans. Participating dentists
agree to comply with the terms of the contractual agreements with ODS,
and to abide by ODS' rules and policies.
7. ODS compensates participating dentists on the basis of submitted
fee schedules. At material times, payments from ODS to Oregon dentists
constituted a significant portion of most individual participating
dentist's receipts from the provision of dental services to patients.
8. At material times, ODS' ``Participating Dentist Rules and
Policies'' contained provisions known as ``most favored nation''
clauses. These provisions stated that, for example, the ``lowest fee
accepted by the Dentist for services to be rendered to any group shall
constitute the Dentist's filed fee scheduled for payment of ODS Health
Plan claims.''
9. ODS' enforcement of the most favored nation clauses in its rules
and policies resulted in most participating dentists' refusal to
discount their fees to non-ODS patients or competing dental plans.
10. ODS' most favored nation clauses have caused significant
numbers of dentists to drop out of or refuse to join competing discount
dental plans. Because such a large percentage of Oregon dentists
participate with ODS' plan, the ODS most favored nation clauses have
resulted in many competing dental plans being unable to attract and/or
retain sufficient numbers of dentists to serve their members.
11. ODS periodically determines the amount it will pay for
procedures to participating dentists based upon fee filings submitted
by the participating dentists. A majority of these dentists used the
fee schedule they filed with ODS as their fee schedule for all other
patients, including those covered by other insurance plans and
uninsured patients.
12. ODS sets the maximum fee allowable for a particular procedure
at the 90th percentile of all fees submitted to it by participating
dentists (the level at or above the fee charged by 90% of participating
dentists). If 10 or fewer of a dentist's submitted fees are above the
90th percentile, ODS notifies the dentist of the amount of the maximum
allowable fee. Most participating dentists file fee schedules proposing
to charge more than the maximum [[Page 21219]] allowable fee for 10 or
fewer procedures; when one of these dentists is advised of the exact
maximum allowable fees, he or she is able to lower the fees no more
than necessary to obtain approval from ODS. If the dentist agrees to
charge the maximum allowable amount, the dentist signs the notification
and returns it to ODS.
13. Most dentists who are participants with ODS are in independent,
private practices and are in actual or potential competition with other
participating dentists for the provision of dental services.
14. At material times, ODS and participating dentists have utilized
interstate banking facilities and purchased not insubstantial
quantities of goods and services from outside the state of Oregon, for
use in providing dental insurance coverage or dental services to
patients.
15. The activities of ODS that are the subject of this Complaint
have been within the flow of, and have substantially affected,
interstate trade and commerce.
IV. Violation Alleged
16. Beginning at a time unknown to the plaintiff and continuing
through at least September 1994, ODS and others engaged in a
combination in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ODS voluntarily
abandoned the combination in September, 1994, but this offense is
likely to recur unless the relief hereinafter sought is granted.
17. For the purpose of forming and effectuating this combination,
ODS did the following things, among others:
(a) Adopted and enforced most favored nation clauses in the
contracts with dentists and in rules and policies the dentists agreed
to abide by, and
(b) Received and disseminated information on the maximum allowable
fees for certain procedures, and obtained signed commitments from
participating dentists to charge the maximum allowable fees.
18. These agreements had the following effects, among others:
(a) Price competition among dentists for the provision of dental
services has been unreasonably restrained and fees for such services
have been stabilized at a level higher than they might otherwise have
been;
(b) Price competition among dental insurance plans has been
unreasonably restrained; and
(c) Consumers of dental services in Oregon have been deprived of
the benefits of free and open competition.
V. Prayer
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays:
1. That the Court adjudge and decree that ODS engaged in an
unlawful combination in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and
commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, as
alleged in the Complaint.
2. That ODS, its members, officers, directors, agents, employees,
and successors and all other persons acting or claiming to act on its
behalf be enjoined, restrained and prohibited for a period of five
years from, in any manner, directly or indirectly, continuing,
maintaining, or renewing the alleged agreements, or from entering into
any other agreement, understanding, plan, program, or other arrangement
having a similar purpose or effect as the alleged agreements.
3. That the United States have such other relief as the nature of
the case may require and the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: April 10, 1995.
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General.
Mark C. Schechter,
Deputy Director of Operations.
Christopher S. Crook,
Acting Chief, San Francisco Office. Antitrust Division, U.S. Department
of Justice.
Barbara J. Nelson,
Philip R. Malone,
Carla G. Addicks,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
Barbara J. Nelson, Philip R. Malone, Carla G. Addicks, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box
36046, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102-3478, (415) 556-
6300, Attorneys for the United States.
In the United States District Court Northern District of California
[Civil No. C95 1211 FMS]
In the matter of: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Oregon
Dental Service, Defendant.
Stipulation
It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their
respective attorneys, that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action and over each of the parties thereto, and venue of this action
is proper in the Northern District of California;
2. The parties consent that a Final Judgment in the form hereto
attached may be filed and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any
party or upon the Court's own motion at any time after compliance with
the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15
U.S.C. 16), and without further notice to any party or other
proceedings, provided that plaintiff United States has not withdrawn
its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the
proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on the defendant and
by filing that notice with the Court. The parties represent that they
have full authority to enter into this Stipulation.
3. In the event plaintiff United States withdraws its consent or if
the proposed Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to this
Stipulation, this Stipulation shall be of no effect whatever and the
making of this Stipulation shall be without prejudice to any party in
this or any other proceeding.
4. The parties agree that the Final Judgment resolves all disputes
between the parties as to the most favored nation clause and disclosure
of the maximum allowable fees. Plaintiff will not institute further
investigation of ODS with regard to the most favored nation clause or
disclosure of maximum allowable fees so long as ODS remains in
compliance with the terms of the Final Judgment, except for the
purposes of determining or securing compliance with the Final Judgment.
5. ODS agrees to comply with the provisions of the Final Judgment
pending entry of the Final Judgment.
Dated: March 28, 1995.
For the United States:
Barbra J. Nelson,
For the Defendant:
Timothy G. Beckler.
In the United States District Court Northern District of California
In the matter of: United States of America, Plaintiff v. Oregon
Dental Service, Defendant.
[Civil No. C95 1211]
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of America through its attorney,
filed its Complaint on , 1995, alleging a violation of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1;
Whereas, the defendant denies liability with respect to all matters
subject of the complaint;
Whereas, there has been no determination by the Court that a
violation of law has occurred;
Whereas, the plaintiff and defendant desire to resolve their
disputes without trial or adjudication of any issue of law or fact; and
Whereas, this Final Judgment shall not be evidence against or an
admission by any party with respect to any issue of law or
fact; [[Page 21220]]
Now therefore, before the taking of any testimony and without trial
or adjudication of any issue of law or fact herein, it is hereby
ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action
and of each of the parties consenting hereto. The Complaint states a
claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendant under
Section I of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
II. Definitions
As used herein, the term:
(A) ``ODS'' means Oregon Dental Service;
(B) ``Most Favored Nation Clause'' or ``MFN'' means those
provisions in the defendant's participating dentist agreements that
prior to September 28, 1994, required that the lowest fee accepted by
the participating dentist for services rendered to any group
constituted the dentist's filed fee schedule for payment of ODS claims.
III. Applicability
(A) This Final Judgment applies to ODS and to ODS' officers,
employees, members acting as corporate policy makers, directors,
successors, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions and any other
organizational units of any kind, and to all other persons in active
concert or participation with any of them. Within 60 days of entry, ODS
shall provide a copy of this Final Judgment by mail or personal service
to ODS' officers, directors and managerial employees. Thereafter, ODS
shall distribute in a timely manner a copy of this Final Judgment to
any new officer, director, or managerial employee.
(B) Nothing herein contained shall suggest that any portion of this
Final Judgment is or has been created for the benefit of any third
party and nothing herein shall be construed to provide any rights to
any third party.
IV. Injunction
(A) ODS is enjoined and restrained from:
(1) Maintaining, adopting, or enforcing an MFN or similar provision
in participating dentist agreements or by any other means or methods;
(2) Taking any other action, directly or indirectly, to influence
or attempt to influence any dentist to refrain from offering discount
fees to any person or dental plan or to refrain from participating in
any dental plan;
(3) Disclosing or in any way directly revealing to a dentist or
dentists the maximum allowable or acceptable fee for a dental procedure
or procedures.
V. Retention of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is retained by the Court for the purpose of enabling
either party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time
for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to
carry out or construe this Final Judgment, modify it on the basis of
changed circumstances, terminate any of its provisions, enforce
compliance, and punish violations of its provisions.
Nothing in this provision shall give standing to any person not a
party to this Final Judgment to seek any relief related to it.
VI. Access to Information
For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with the
Final Judgment, from time to time:
(A) Duly authorized representatives of the United States, upon
written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to ODS, shall be
permitted, subject to any legally recognized privilege, access, during
office hours, to inspect and copy all books, ledgers, accounts,
correspondence, memoranda and other records and documents in the
possession or under the control of ODS relating to any matters
contained in this Final Judgment; and
(B) In the event that the plaintiff has reasonable cause to believe
that ODS had not complied with the terms of this Final Judgment, then
upon the written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
the Antitrust Division, ODS shall submit such written reports, under
oath if requested, with respect to any of the matter contained in this
Final Judgment.
ODS shall have the right to be represented by counsel in any such
process.
Any information provided to the plaintiff under this section of the
Final Judgment shall be kept confidential by the plaintiff and shall
not be disclosed to third parties except as necessary to enforce the
Final Judgment or as otherwise previously agreed or required by law.
Nothing in this Final Judgment prohibits the plaintiff from using
any other investigatory method authorized by law.
VII. Term
This Final Judgment shall expire five years from the date of its
entry.
VIII. Public Interest
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Dated this ________ day of ____________, 1995.
United States District Judge.
In the United States District Court Northern District of California
In the matter of: United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Oregon
Dental Service, defendant.
[Civil No. C95 1211]
Competitive Impact Statement
Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b)-(h), the United States submits this
Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment
(or ``the Judgment'') submitted for entry against and with the consent
of Oregon Dental Service (``ODS'' or ``the defendant'') in this civil
proceeding.
I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding
On April 10, 1995, the United States filed this single-count civil
antitrust suit alleging that ODS, an Oregon non-profit corporation
which does business in the Northern District of California, entered
into a combination in unreasonable restraint of trade consisting of
agreements to restrain price competition for dental services in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. Plaintiff asked
the Court to find that the defendant has violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and further asked the Court to enjoin the continuation of
the combination.
Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will terminate the action,
except that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the matter for any
further proceedings required to interpret, enforce or modify the
judgment or to punish violations of any of its provisions.
II. Practices Giving Rise to the Violation
ODS is an Oregon non-profit corporation. ODS' principal place of
business is in Portland, Oregon. It was created by the Oregon Dental
Association, a professional association of dentists. Dentists hold the
majority of positions on ODS' Board of Directors. ODS contracts with
businesses, governmental agencies, and other organizations to provide
pre-paid dental care coverage to their employees. ODS contracts
directly with dentists or groups of dentists to provide dental services
to patients who are members of those covered groups. [[Page 21221]]
ODS compensates its participating provider dentists for their
services on the basis of a fee for service, determined in part through
fee schedules submitted by each dentist. ODS sets its maximum allowable
fee at the 90th percentile of all fees for a procedure submitted to it
by participating dentists. That is, the maximum allowable fee is equal
to or greater than the fees charged by 90% of participating dentists.
If 10 or fewer of a dentist's filed fees are above this 90th
percentile, ODS informs the dentist of the maximum amount that it will
pay for the service. Most participating dentists file fee schedules
proposing to charge above the maximum allowable fee for 10 or fewer
procedures, so they are informed of exactly what fee they may charge
and can avoid lowering their fees more than necessary to receive
payment from ODS. If the dentist agrees to charge that amount, he or
she signs the notification and returns it to ODS.
In excess of 90 percent of the dentists in the state of Oregon have
provider contracts with ODS. For most of these dentist, payments from
treatment of ODS patients are a significant part of their income. Most
of these dentists are in independent, private practice and actually or
potentially compete with other participating ODS dentists to provide
dental service to both ODS and non-ODS patients.
ODS' participating dentists agree to abide by ODS rules and
policies, which contain what is called a ``most favored nation'' clause
(``MFN''). The MFN requires that each dentist charge ODS the lowest
price that dentist charges any other group. Accordingly, if a dentist
reduces fees to a competing dental plan, the MFN requires that the
dentist also reduce fees to ODS. The United States alleges that the
effect of the MFN has been to require participating ODS dentists to
charge other dental plans and non-ODS patients fees that are as high as
or higher than the fees charged to ODS.
The Complaint alleges that, beginning at a time unknown to the
plaintiff and continuing through at least September 1994, ODS and
others engaged in a combination in unreasonable restraint of interstate
trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. 1. The Complaint alleges that the combination ended in September
1994, when ODS voluntarily terminated the MFN for business reasons.
To form and effectuate this combination, ODS adopted and enforced
an MFN in its rules and policies which dentists were contractually
obligated to adhere to, received and disseminated information on the
maximum allowable fees for certain procedures, and obtained signed
commitments from participating dentists to charge the maximum allowable
fees.
Had this case proceeded to trial, the plaintiff was prepared to
prove that the combination unreasonably restrained price competition
among dentists and between other dental insurance plans and ODS, and
stabilized prices for dental services.
ODS' adoption and enforcement of the MFN restrained price
competition among Oregon dentists for the provision of dental services
because it caused significant numbers of dentists to refuse to discount
their fees. Before the MFN was enforced, certain Oregon dentists had
reduced their fees to ODS competitors in order to participate in the
competitors' managed-care plans. Others had indicated a willingness to
do so.
After ODS began enforcing the MFN, however, most participating
dentists refused to discount their fees to non-ODS patients or
competing discount dental plans because, if they did, the MFN would
require them to also lower all of their fees to ODS. Since most
dentists in Oregon receive a significant portion of their income from
treating ODS patients, the cost to those dentists of discounting their
fees on non-ODS patients or competing dental care plans became too
great to justify discounting. For the same reason, it was too costly
for most dentists to drop their participation in ODS' plan in order to
avoid the MFN and be able to discount their fees to competing discount
dental plans. Consequently, the MFN substantially reduced discounting
that was occurring and, had it continued in force, would have deterred
future discounting.
The plaintiff was also prepared to prove that the combination
unreasonably restrained competition between ODS and other dental
insurance plans. Because of the MFN and its effect on the willingness
of dentists to join discount dental plans, competing discount plans
were unable to attract and keep a sufficiently large qualified, and
geographically varied panel of dentists to adequately serve their
members and make their plans commercially marketable to employer and
other groups. Some plans left the market or had their ability to
attract and serve patient groups severely restricted, leading to a
substantial reduction in their ability to complete with ODS.
The combination deprived Oregon consumers of price competition
among dentists who stopped discounting their fees. Consumers were also
deprived of choices of competing dental insurance plans offering
different combinations of dentists, services, and prices.
Moreover, the plaintiff was prepared to prove that ODS' revealing
the maximum acceptable fees to those dentists with 10 or fewer
procedures over the maximum prevented those fees from falling below the
maximum and effectively stabilized those fees at the maximum acceptable
level--a level higher than they might otherwise have been. As a result,
consumers were further deprived of price competition among dentists.
III. Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment
The plaintiff and ODS have stipulated that the Court may enter the
proposed Final Judgment after compliance with the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h). The proposed Final Judgment
provides that its entry does not constitute any evidence against or
admission of any party with respect to any issue of law or fact.
Under the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(e), the proposed Final Judgment may not
be entered unless the Court finds that entry is in the public interest.
Section VIII of the proposed Final Judgment sets forth such a finding.
The proposed Final Judgment is intended to ensure that ODS does not
reinstate its MFN and ceases disclosing its maximum allowable fees to
participating dentists. The proposed Final Judgment also prohibits ODS
from taking any other action that may influence dentists' decisions
regarding the discounting of fees.
A. Scope of the Proposed Final Judgment
Section III of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final
Judgment shall apply to ODS and to ODS' officers, employees, members
acting as corporate policy makers, directors, successors, assigns,
subsidiaries, divisions and any other organizational units of any kind,
and to all other persons in active concert or participation with any of
them.
In the Stipulation to the proposed Final Judgment, ODS has agreed
to be bound by the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, pending its
approval by the Court.
B. Prohibitions and Obligations
Under Section IV of the proposed Final Judgment, ODS is enjoined
and restrained for a period of five years from maintaining, adopting,
or enforcing an MFN or similar provision in
[[Page 21222]] participating dentist agreements or by any other means
or methods, or by taking any other action, directly or indirectly, to
influence or attempt to influence any dentist to refrain from offering
discount fees to any person or dental plan or to refrain from
participating in any dental plan. ODS is also enjoined and restrained
for a period of five years from disclosing or in any way directly
revealing to a dentist or dentists the maximum allowable or acceptable
fee for a dental procedure or procedures.
The proposed Final Judgment also provides that the plaintiff will
have access to information to enforce the judgment.
C. Effect of the Proposed Final Judgment on Competition
The relief required by the proposed Final Judgment will prohibit
reinstatement of a substantial restraint on price competition among
dentists and between ODS and other dental plans in Oregon, by ensuring
that ODS will not adopt or enforce the limitations on dentists'
abilities to discount created by the MFN. The proposed Final Judgment
will also prohibit ODS from taking any other action which might
discourage participating dentists from discounting or participating in
competing discount plans. As a result, dentists will be free to
discount or to join other discount plans, and discount dental plans
will no longer be prevented by ODS' actions from attracting and
maintaining viable panels of dentists to serve their members.
Finally, the relief required by the proposed Final Judgment will
prohibit ODS' dissemination of the maximum fee amount for particular
procedures. Without the information provided by ODS, dentists will have
to determine independently the fees to charge for their services.
The prohibitions in the proposed Final Judgment will restore to
dental consumers the benefits of free and open competition that were
suppressed by ODS' adoption and enforcement of the MFN. The proposed
Final Judgment prohibits ODS from reinstating the MFN during the term
of the Final Judgment.
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Final Judgment
The alternative to the proposed Final Judgment is a full trial on
the merits of the case. Such a trial would involve substantial cost to
the United States and the defendant and is not warranted because the
proposed Final Judgment provides all the relief that is needed to
remedy the violations of the Sherman Act alleged in the United States'
complaint.
V. Remedies Available to Private Litigants
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any
person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the
antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times
the damages suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither impair nor assist in
the bringing of such actions. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the Final Judgment has no prima facie
effect in any subsequent lawsuits that may be brought against the
defendant in this matter.
VI. Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final
Judgment
As provided in the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, any
person believing that the proposed judgment should be modified may
submit written comments to Christopher S Crook, Acting Chief, San
Francisco Office, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102-3478, within the 60-day
period provided by the Act. These comments, and the plaintiff's
responses to them, will be filed with the Court and published in the
Federal Register. All comments will be given due consideration by the
Department of Justice, which remains free, pursuant to the Stipulation,
to withdraw its consent to the proposed Final Judgment at any time
prior to its entry if The Department should determine that some
modification of the judgment is necessary to the public interest. The
proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court will retain
jurisdiction over this action, and that the parties may apply to the
Court for such orders as may be necessary or appropriate for the
modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Judgment.
VII. Determinative Documents
No materials and documents of the type described in Section 2(b) of
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b), were
considered in formulating the proposed Judgment. Consequently, none are
filed herewith.
Dated: April 10, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara J. Nelson,
Phillip R. Malone,
Carla G. Addicks,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 95-10596 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M