Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Cardinal Health Agrees to Pay $26.8 Million to Settle FTC Charges of Monopolization


April 24, 2015

The FTC has announced that Cardinal Health, Inc. has agreed to resolve charges that it monopolized 25 local markets for the sale and distribution of low-energy radiopharmaceuticals forcing hospitals and clinics to pay inflated prices.1

The FTC alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and General Electric Company (GE) were the only U.S. manufacturers of heart stress test radiopharmaceuticals. Through separate acquisitions in 2003 and 2004, the FTC alleged that Cardinal became the largest operator of radiopharmacies and the only operator in 25 metropolitan areas. The FTC alleged that Cardinal forced BMS and GE to refuse distribution rights for their radiopharmaceuticals to new competitors of Cardinal by, among other things: canceling and threatening to cancel Cardinal's orders with BMS and GE; switching Cardinal's customers from BMS product to GE unless BMS abandoned its plans to license its product to competitors; and conditioning Cardinal's future relationship with GE on GE's refusal to grant distribution rights to competitors of Cardinal.

The $26.8 million payment by Cardinal is the second largest monetary settlement obtained by the FTC in an antitrust case and is also significant because the $26.8 million amount is a disgorgement of the alleged ill-gotten profits earned by Cardinal. In addition, the settlement (1) bars Cardinal from entering into certain exclusive deals with manufacturers, (2) requires notice to the FTC before entering into exclusive distribution agreements or purchasing radiopharmacy assets, (3) requires Cardinal's customers in certain areas to be given the right to terminate their contracts with a monitor to oversee the process, and (4) requires Cardinal to establish an antitrust compliance program for its radiopharmacy division.

This case confirms that the federal enforcement agencies continue to view healthcare antitrust matters as a high priority. Further, it is worth noting that (1) the multiple acquisitions that led to Cardinal's alleged market power occurred in 2003-2004 - more than 10 years ago and (2) the conduct by GE that allegedly forced BMS and GE not to do business with competitors of Cardinal occurred from 2003 to 2008 – more than seven years ago.

A copy of the FTC press release with links to the proposed settlement and complaint may be found here.

In Case You Missed It:

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.