Document:

exv10w1

 

EXHIBIT 10.1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

	 	 	 
	
         In the Matter of	 	
    File No. 051-0154
	
    
    FRESENIUS AG,

    	 	 
	
    
         a corporation.

    	 	 

AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT ORDERS

     
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) having
initiated an investigation of the proposed acquisition of Renal
Care Group, Inc. by Fresenius AG and entities controlled by
Fresenius AG, including (1) Fresenius Medical Care AG &
Co. KGaA, a partnership limited by shares organized under the
laws of the Federal Republic of Germany the general partner of
which is majority owned by Fresenius AG, (2) Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc., a New York corporation majority
owned by Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA, a partnership
limited by shares organized under the laws of the Federal
Republic of Germany, and (3) Florence Acquisition, Inc., a
Delaware corporation wholly owned by Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc., and Fresenius AG (hereafter referred to as
“Proposed Respondent”), and it now appearing that
Proposed Respondent is willing to enter into this Agreement
Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) to
divest certain assets and providing for other relief:

     
IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between Proposed Respondent,
by its duly authorized officers and attorneys, and counsel for
the Commission that:

		
	1.	
    Fresenius AG is a corporation organized, existing and doing
    business under and by virtue of the laws of Federal Republic of
    Germany, with its office and principal place of business located
    at Else-Kröner-Straße 1, 61352 Bad Homburg,
    Germany. Fresenius AG is the ultimate parent of
    (1) Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA, a
    partnership limited by shares organized under the laws of the
    Federal Republic of Germany, the general partner of which is
    majority owned by Fresenius AG, with its office and principal
    place of business located at
    Else-Kröner-Straße 1, 61352 Bad Homburg, Germany,
    (2) Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., a New York
    corporation majority owned by Fresenius Medical Care
    AG & Co. KGaA, a partnership limited by shares
    organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany,
    with its office and principal place of business located at
    95 Hayden Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420, and
    (3) Florence Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation
    wholly owned by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc, with its
    office and principal place of business located at 95 Hayden
    Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420.
	 
	2.	
    Proposed Respondent admits all the jurisdictional facts set
    forth in the draft of Complaint here attached.
	 
	3.	
    Proposed Respondent waives:

 

			
	 	a.	
    any further procedural steps;
	 
	 	b.	
    the requirement that the Commission’s Decision and Order
    and Order to Maintain Assets, both of which are attached hereto
    and made a part hereof, contain a statement of findings of fact
    and conclusions of law;
	 
	 	c.	
    all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge or
    contest the validity of the Decision and Order or the Order to
    Maintain Assets entered pursuant to this Consent Agreement; and
	 
	 	d.	
    any claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

		
	4.	
    Because there may be interim competitive harm, the Commission
    may issue its Complaint and the Order to Maintain Assets in this
    matter at any time after it accepts the Consent Agreement for
    public comment.
	 
	5.	
    The Proposed Respondent shall submit an initial report, pursuant
    to Section 2.33 of the Commission’s Rules, 16 C.F.R.
    § 2.33, within fifteen (15) days of the date on
    which it executes this Consent Agreement and every thirty
    (30) days thereafter until the Decision and Order becomes
    final or the divestitures required pursuant to
    Paragraph II.A. of the Decision and Order are accomplished,
    whichever is earlier. Each such report shall be signed by the
    Proposed Respondent and shall set forth in detail the manner in
    which the Proposed Respondent has to date complied or has
    prepared to comply, is complying, and will comply with the Order
    to Maintain Assets and the Decision and Order. Such reports will
    not become part of the public record unless and until the
    Consent Agreement and Decision and Order are accepted by the
    Commission for public comment.
	 
	6.	
    This Consent Agreement shall not become part of the public
    record of the proceeding unless and until it is accepted by the
    Commission. If this Consent Agreement is accepted by the
    Commission, it, together with the draft of Complaint
    contemplated thereby, will be placed on the public record for a
    period of thirty (30) days and information in respect
    thereto publicly released. The Commission thereafter may either
    withdraw its acceptance of this Consent Agreement and so notify
    Proposed Respondent, in which event it will take such action as
    it may consider appropriate, or issue or amend its Complaint (in
    such form as the circumstances may require) and issue its
    Decision and Order, in disposition of the proceeding.
	 
	7.	
    This Consent Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does
    not constitute an admission by Proposed Respondent that the law
    has been violated as alleged in the draft of Complaint here
    attached, or that the facts as alleged in the draft of
    Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.
	 
	8.	
    This Consent Agreement contemplates that, if it is accepted by
    the Commission, the Commission may (a) issue and serve its
    Complaint corresponding in form and substance with the draft of
    Complaint here attached, (b) issue and serve its Order to
    Maintain Assets, and (c) make information public with
    respect thereto. If such acceptance is not subsequently
    withdrawn by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of
    Commission Rule 2.34, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, the
    Commission may, without further notice to the Proposed
    Respondent, issue the attached Decision and Order

2

 

		
	 	
    containing an order to divest and providing for other relief in
    disposition of the proceeding.

		
	9.	
    When final, the Decision and Order and the Order to Maintain
    Assets shall have the same force and effect and may be altered,
    modified or set aside in the same manner and within the same
    time provided by statute for other orders. The Decision and
    Order and the Order to Maintain Assets shall become final upon
    service. Delivery of the Complaint, the Decision and Order, and
    the Order to Maintain Assets to Proposed Respondent by any means
    provided in Commission Rule 4.4(a), 16 C.F.R.
    § 4.4(a), shall constitute service. Proposed
    Respondent waives any right it may have to any other manner of
    service. Proposed Respondent also waives any right it may
    otherwise have to service of any Appendices incorporated by
    reference into the Decision and Order, and agrees that it is
    bound to comply with and will comply with the Decision and Order
    and the Order to Maintain Assets to the same extent as if it had
    been served with copies of the Appendices, where Proposed
    Respondent is already in possession of copies of such Appendices.
	 
	10.	
    The Complaint may be used in construing the terms of the
    Decision and Order and the Order to Maintain Assets, and no
    agreement, understanding, representation, or interpretation not
    contained in the Decision and Order, the Order to Maintain
    Assets, or the Consent Agreement may be used to vary or
    contradict the terms of the Decision and Order or the Order to
    Maintain Assets.
	 
	11.	
    By signing this Consent Agreement, Proposed Respondent
    represents and warrants that it can accomplish the full relief
    contemplated by the attached Decision and Order (including
    effectuating all required divestitures, assignments, and
    transfers) and that all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and
    successors necessary to effectuate the full relief contemplated
    by this Consent Agreement are parties to this Consent Agreement.
	 
	12.	
    By signing this Consent Agreement, Proposed Respondent
    represents and warrants that it has obtained all third-party
    approvals necessary for Proposed Respondent to comply with the
    Decision and Order, including, but not limited to:

			
	 	a.	
    all governmental approvals required by Paragraph II.C.1 of
    the Decision and Order;
	 
	 	b.	
    all third-party approvals required by Paragraph II.C.2 of
    the Decision and Order for the assignment of leases;
	 
	 	c.	
    all third-party approvals required by II.C.3 of the Decision and
    Order for the assignment of contracts with physicians; and
	 
	 	d.	
    all joint venture partner approvals required by
    Paragraph II.C.4 of the Decision and Order.

		
	13.	
    By signing this Consent Agreement, Proposed Respondent
    represents and warrants that the Divestiture Agreements, as
    defined in the Decision and Order, require Proposed Respondent
    to divest all assets required to be divested pursuant to the
    Decision and Order and require Proposed Respondent to comply
    with Paragraph II of the Decision and Order and
    Paragraph II of the Order to Maintain Assets.

3

 

		
	14.	
    Proposed Respondent has read the draft of the Complaint, the
    Decision and Order, and the Order to Maintain Assets
    contemplated hereby. Proposed Respondent understands that once
    the Decision and Order and the Order to Maintain Assets have
    been issued, it will be required to file one or more compliance
    reports showing that it has fully complied with the Decision and
    Order and the Order to Maintain Assets. Proposed Respondent
    agrees to comply with the terms of the proposed Decision and
    Order and the Order to Maintain Assets from the date it signs
    this Consent Agreement. Proposed Respondent further understands
    that it may be liable for civil penalties in the amount provided
    by law for each violation of the Decision and Order and of the
    Order to Maintain Assets after they become final.

Signed this 14th day of March, 2006.

4

 

	 	 	 
	 
	
    FRESENIUS AG

    
   

    By:  
Dr.
    Ulf M. Schneider

    President and C.E.O.

    Fresenius AG

    

    

     
Stephan
    Sturm

    Chief Financial Officer

    Fresenius AG

    

    

     
Robert
    E. Bloch

    Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP

    Counsel for Fresenius AG	 	
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

    

     
Gary
    H. Schorr

    Robert S. Canterman

    Linda Blumenreich

    Martha H. Oppenheim

    Attorneys

    Bureau of Competition

    

     APPROVED:

    

     
David
    R. Pender

    Acting Assistant Director

    Bureau of Competition

     
Jeffrey
    Schmidt

    Director

    Bureau of Competition

5exv10w2

 

EXHIBIT 10.2

051 0154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

	 	 	 
	
    
    COMMISSIONERS:

    	 	
    Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman
	 	 	
    Pamela Jones Harbour
	 	 	
    Jon Leibowitz
	 	 	
    William E. Kovacic
	 	 	
    J. Thomas Rosch

	 	 	 	 
	 	
    
    In the Matter of

    	 	
    Docket No. C-
	
    
    FRESENIUS AG,

    	 	 
	 	
    
    a corporation

    	 	 

COMPLAINT

     
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq., and by
virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal
Trade Commission (“Commission”), having reason to
believe that Fresenius AG (“Fresenius AG”), a
corporation, and entities controlled by Fresenius AG, including
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA (“FME
KGaA”), a partnership; Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc. (“FME”), a corporation; and
Florence Acquisition, Inc. (“FAI”), a
corporation, (collectively “Fresenius”), all subject
to the jurisdiction of the Commission, have agreed to acquire
Renal Care Group, Inc. (“RCG”), a corporation
subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (“FTC Act”), as amended,
15 U.S.C. § 45, and it appearing to the
Commission that a proceeding in respect thereof would be in the
public interest, hereby issues this Complaint stating its
charges as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

     
1. This matter concerns an agreement whereby Fresenius
would acquire RCG; if consummated, this acquisition would
substantially lessen competition for services relating to
administering outpatient chronic kidney dialysis treatment
(“outpatient dialysis services”) to end stage renal
disease (“ESRD”) patients in 66 local geographic
markets across the United States. ESRD is a disease
characterized by a near total loss of function of the kidneys.
Outpatient chronic dialysis treatments are a life-sustaining
therapy that replaces the function of the kidneys by removing
toxins and excess fluid from the blood (“dialysis”).
Fresenius and RCG are two of the three largest operators of
clinics providing outpatient dialysis services throughout the
United

 

States. The post-acquisition firm would be able to exercise
unilateral market power in the relevant geographic markets,
which would result in higher prices and reduced incentives to
improve service or quality for outpatient dialysis services.

II. RESPONDENTS

     
2. Respondent Fresenius AG is a corporation organized,
existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of
the Federal Republic of Germany, with its office and principal
place of business located at
Else-Kröner-Straße 1, 61352 Bad Homburg, Germany.
Fresenius AG is the ultimate parent of Respondents (1) FME
KGaA, a partnership limited by shares, organized, existing, and
doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the Federal
Republic of Germany, the general partner of which is majority
owned by Fresenius AG, with its office and principal place of
business located at Else-Kröner-Straße 1, 61352
Bad Homburg, Germany; (2) FME, a corporation organized,
existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of
the State of New York, majority owned by FME KGaA, with its
office and principal place of business located at 95 Hayden
Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420; and (3) FAI, a corporation
organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of
the laws of the State of Delaware, wholly owned by FME, with its
office and principal place of business located at 95 Hayden
Avenue, Lexington, MA 02420.

     
3. After acquiring RCG, Respondent Fresenius will be the
largest provider of outpatient dialysis services in the United
States. In 2005, Fresenius had approximately $4.1 billion
in revenues from the provision of outpatient dialysis services
to approximately 89,000 ESRD patients at approximately 1,155
outpatient dialysis clinics nationwide.

     
4. Respondents are, and at all times herein have been,
engaged in commerce, as “commerce” is defined in
Section 1 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
§ 12, and are corporations or a partnership whose
businesses are in or affect commerce, as “commerce” is
defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

III. THE ACQUIRED COMPANY

     
5. RCG is a corporation organized, existing, and doing
business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its office and principal place of business
located at 2100 West End Avenue, Suite 600, Nashville,
Tennessee 37203.

     
6. RCG is the third largest provider of outpatient dialysis
services in the United States, with approximately 450 outpatient
dialysis clinics nationwide, at which approximately 32,000 ESRD
patients receive treatment. In 2005, RCG had approximately
$1.5 billion in revenues from the provision of outpatient
dialysis services.

     
7. RCG is, and at all times herein has been, engaged in
commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 1
of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 12,
and is a corporation whose

2

 

business is in or affects commerce, as “commerce” is
defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 44.

IV. THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION

     
8. Fresenius entered into an agreement with RCG dated
May 3, 2005 (the “Agreement”), to acquire RCG in
a transaction valued at approximately $3.5 billion (the
“Acquisition”).

V. THE RELEVANT MARKET

     
9. For the purposes of this Complaint, the relevant line of
commerce in which to analyze the effects of the Acquisition is
the provision of outpatient dialysis services. The only
alternative to outpatient dialysis treatments for ESRD patients
is a kidney transplant. However, the wait-time for donor
kidneys — during which ESRD patients must receive
dialysis treatments — can exceed five years.
Additionally, many ESRD patients are not viable transplant
candidates. As a result, many ESRD patients have no alternative
to outpatient dialysis treatments.

     
10. For the purposes of this Complaint, the relevant
geographic market for the provision of outpatient dialysis
services is defined by the distance ESRD patients are willing
and/or able to travel to receive dialysis treatments, and is
thus local in nature. Most ESRD patients receive dialysis
treatments in an outpatient dialysis clinic three times per
week, in sessions lasting between three and five hours. Because
ESRD patients often suffer from multiple health problems and may
require assistance traveling to and from the dialysis clinic,
these patients are unwilling and/or unable to travel long
distances to receive dialysis treatment. The time and distance a
patient will travel in a particular location are significantly
affected by traffic patterns; whether an area is urban,
suburban, or rural; local geography; and a patient’s
proximity to the nearest dialysis clinic. The size of relevant
geographic markets is also influenced by a variety of other
factors including population density, roads, geographic
features, and political boundaries.

     
11. For the purposes of this Complaint, the 66 geographic
markets within which to assess the competitive effects of the
proposed merger are the following 39 metropolitan statistical
areas (“MSAs”), other areas, or, particular geographic
areas contained therein: (1) Birmingham-Hoover, Alabama
MSA; (2) Osceola and Blytheville, Arkansas;
(3) Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona MSA;
(4) Prescott, Arizona MSA; (5) Naples-Marco Island,
Florida MSA; (6) Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, Florida MSA;
(7) Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida MSA;
(8) Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Georgia MSA;
(9) Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois MSA; (10) Lake
County-Kenosha County, Illinois-Wisconsin MSA; (11) Auburn,
Indiana; (12) Fort Wayne, Indiana MSA;
(13) Huntington, Indiana; (14) Indianapolis, Indiana
MSA; (15) Logansport, Indiana; (16) Seymour and
Scottsburg, Indiana; (17) Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana MSA;
(18) Baton Rouge, Louisiana MSA; (19) Houma-Bayou
Cane-Thibodaux, Louisiana MSA; (20) Essex County,
Massachusetts MSA; (21) Jackson, Mississippi MSA;
(22) Carthage

3

 

and Philadelphia, Mississippi; (23) Lexington and
Kosciusko, Mississippi; (24) Kansas City, MO-KS MSA;
(25) Las Cruces, New Mexico MSA; (26) Las
Vegas-Paradise, Nevada MSA; (27) Akron, Ohio MSA;
(28) Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, Oregon-Washington MSA;
(29) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania MSA;
(30) Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, Rhode
Island-Massachusetts MSA; (31) Greenville, South Carolina
MSA; (32) Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas MSA;
(33) Alice, Texas; (34) Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas
MSA; (35) Corpus Christi, Texas MSA;
(36) McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas MSA;
(37) El Paso, Texas MSA; (38) Terrell and Sulphur
Springs, Texas; and (39) Spokane, Washington MSA.

VI. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MARKET

     
12. The market for the provision of outpatient dialysis
services in each of the relevant geographic markets identified
in Paragraph 11 is highly concentrated, as measured by the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”). The Acquisition
would increase concentration significantly in each relevant
market, leaving Fresenius as the dominant provider of outpatient
dialysis services.

     
13. Fresenius and RCG are actual and substantial
competitors in each of the relevant markets.

VII. ENTRY CONDITIONS

     
14. The most significant barrier to entry into the relevant
markets is locating a nephrologist with an established referral
base who is willing and able to enter into a contract with a
dialysis clinic to serve as the clinic’s medical director.
Federal law requires each dialysis clinic to have a physician
medical director. Having a nephrologist serve as medical
director is essential to the competitiveness of the clinic,
because he or she is the clinic’s primary source of
referrals. A medical director’s contract with a clinic
typically prevents the medical director (and often his or her
partners) from serving as a medical director for a competing
clinic while serving as the clinic’s medical director. The
lack of available nephrologists with an established referral
stream is a significant barrier to entry into each of the
relevant geographic markets identified in Paragraph 11.

     
15. Additionally, certain attributes are necessary to
attract new entry into particular relevant markets, including a
rapidly growing ESRD population, a favorable regulatory
environment (including no state certificate of need requirements
regulating the development of new clinics), average or lower
nursing and labor costs, and a relatively low penetration of
managed care. The absence of any of these attributes constitutes
an additional barrier to entry into particular relevant markets.

     
16. New entry into the relevant markets sufficient to deter
or counteract the anticompetitive effects described in
Paragraph 17 is unlikely to occur, and would not occur in a

4

 

timely manner because it would take over two years to enter and
achieve significant market impact.

VIII. EFFECTS OF THE ACQUISITION

     
17. The effects of the Acquisition, if consummated, may be
substantially to lessen competition and tend to create a
monopoly in the relevant markets in violation of Section 7
of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18,
and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
§ 45, in the following ways, among others:

		
	 	     
    a. eliminating actual, direct, and substantial competition
    between Fresenius and RCG;
	 
	 	     
    b. increasing the ability of the merged entity unilaterally
    to raise prices; and
	 
	 	     
    c. reducing incentives to improve service or quality.

IX. VIOLATIONS CHARGED

     
18. The Agreement described in Paragraph 8 constitutes
a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended,
15 U.S.C. § 45.

     
19. The Acquisition described in Paragraph 8, if
consummated, would constitute a violation of Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and
Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
§ 45.

     
WHEREFORE, THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Federal Trade Commission
on this       day of
                    ,
2006, issues its Complaint against said Respondents.

By the Commission.

		
	 	
    Donald S. Clark
	 	
    Secretary

SEAL:

5

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00104-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00104-of-00352.parquet"}]]