95-27939. U.S. v. Vision Service Plan; Proposed Revised Final Judgment and Revised Competitive Impact Statement  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 57017-57021]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-27939]
    
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    
    Antitrust Division
    
    
    U.S. v. Vision Service Plan; Proposed Revised Final Judgment and 
    Revised Competitive Impact Statement
    
        Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
    Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 16 (b) through (h), that a proposed 
    Revised Final Judgment, a Superseding Stipulation, and a Revised 
    Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States 
    District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of America 
    v. Vision Service Plan, Case No. 1:94CV02693.
        The Complaint in the case alleges that Vision Service Plan (VSP) 
    entered into so-called ``most favored nation'' agreements with its 
    panel doctors in unreasonable restraint of trade, in violation of 
    Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by effectively restricting 
    the willingness of panel doctors to discount fees for vision care 
    services and substantially reducing discounted fees for vision care 
    services.
    
    [[Page 57018]]
    
        The proposed Revised Final Judgment eliminates VSP's most favored 
    nation clause and enjoins VSP from engaging in other actions that would 
    limit future discounting by its participating doctors. The proposed 
    Revised Final Judgment modifies a few provisions of the original 
    proposed Final Judgment in view of VSP's experience while operating 
    under the terms of the original proposed Final Judgment, pursuant to a 
    Stipulation with the Government, pending approval of a Final Judgment 
    by the Court. The specific revisions, and the reason for making them, 
    are summarized and explained in the Revised Competitive Impact 
    Statement.
        Public comment on the proposed Revised Final Judgment is invited 
    within the statutory 60-day comment period. Such comments and responses 
    thereto will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the 
    Court. Comments should be directed to Gail Kursh, Chief; Professions & 
    Intellectual Property Section/Health Care Task Force; United States 
    Department of Justice; Antitrust Division; 600 E Street, NW., Room 
    9300; Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: (202) 307-5799).
    Rebecca P. Dick,
    Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
    
    In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Vision Service Plan, 
    Defendant.
    
    [Case No. 1:94CV02693 TPJ]
    
    Superseding Stipulation
    
        It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their 
    respective attorneys, that:
        1. This Superseding Stipulation supersedes the Stipulation of the 
    parties filed with the Court on December 15, 1994.
        2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 
    action and over each of the parties hereto, and venue of this action is 
    proper in the District of Columbia.
        3. The parties consent that a Revised 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 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 defendant and by filing 
    that notice with the Court.
        4. Defendant agrees to be bound by the provisions of the proposed 
    Revised Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court. If plaintiff 
    withdraws its consent, or if the proposed Revised Final Judgment is not 
    entered pursuant to the terms of the Superseding Stipulation, this 
    Stipulation shall be of no effect whatsoever, and the making of this 
    Stipulation shall be without prejudice to any party in this or in any 
    other proceeding.
    
        For Plaintiff:
    Anne K. Bingaman,
    Assistant Attorney General.
    Joel I. Klein,
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
    Rebecca P. Dick,
    Deputy Director, Office of Operations.
    Gail Kursh,
    D.C. Bar #293118, Chief.
    David C. Jordan,
    D.C. Bar #914093, Ass't. Chief Professions & Intellectual Property 
    Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
    Steven Kramer
    Richard S. Martin,
    Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 600 E Street, 
    NW., Room 9420, BICN Bldg., Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-0997.
    
        For Defendant:
    John J. Miles,
    D.C. Bar #364054, Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, Fifth Floor, 1401 H 
    Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-2202 (202) 326-5008.
    Barclay L. Westerfeld,
    General Counsel, Vision Service Plan, 3333 Quality Drive, Rancho 
    Cordova, CA 95670, (916) 851-5000.
    
    In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Vision Service Plan, 
    Defendant.
    
    [Case No. 1:94CV02693 TPJ]
    
    Revised Final Judgment
    
        Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on 
    December 15, 1994. Plaintiff and Defendant, by their respective 
    attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without 
    trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment 
    shall not be evidence against or an admission by any party about any 
    issue of fact or law or that any violation of law has occurred. 
    Therefore, before the taking of any testimony and without trial or 
    adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and upon consent of 
    the parties, it is hereby
        ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, as follows:
    
    I
    
    Jurisdiction
    
        This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 
    and over each of the parties consenting hereto. The Complaint states a 
    claim upon which relief may be granted against the Defendant under 
    Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.
    
    II
    
    Definitions
    
        As used herein, the term:
        (A) ``Defendant'' or ``VSP'' means Vision Service Plan;
        (B) ``Panel Doctor's Agreement'' means the VSP Panel Member 
    Agreement by which Defendant contracts with optometrists or 
    ophthalmologists, including all amendments and additions, in effect at 
    any time since January 1, 1992, and during the term of this Final 
    Judgment;
        (C) ``Most Favored Nation Clause'' means:
        (1) the clause characterized as a Fee Non-Discrimination Clause in 
    paragraph 6 of the VSP Panel Doctor's Agreement, pursuant to which each 
    VSP member doctor agrees:
        (a) not to charge fees to VSP that are any higher than those 
    charged to the doctor's non-VSP patients, nor those that the doctor 
    accepts from any other non-governmental group, group plan, or panel;
        (b) If a published VSP fee schedule would cause payment in excess 
    of the doctor's usual and customary fee, to notify VSP and accept such 
    lower fee as is consistent with the doctor's usual and customary fees; 
    and
        (c) if VSP determines that the doctor is charging fees to VSP that 
    are higher than those charged non-VSP patients, VSP shall reduce the 
    doctor's fees accordingly; or
        (2) any other existing or future clause in the VSP Panel Doctor's 
    Agreement, VSP policy, or VSP practice having the same purpose or 
    effect, in whole or in part.
        (D) ``Non-VSP patients'' means patients who are not members of a 
    plan insured or administered by VSP.
        (E) ``Non-VSP plan'' means any plan (other than VSP) responsible 
    for all or part of any expense for vision care services, provided to 
    plan members, pursuant to contractual terms with providers of vision 
    services limiting the fees that providers collect for serving the 
    plan's members.
        (F) ``Usual and customary fees'' means the fees for services and 
    materials that are charged, before any discounting, by VSP panel 
    doctors to their private 
    
    [[Page 57019]]
    patients (patients not covered by Medicare or Medicaid programs).
        (G) ``VSP panel doctor'' means any optometrist or ophthalmologist 
    who has entered into, or who has applied to enter into, a VSP Panel 
    Doctor's Agreement.
    
    III
    
    Applicability
    
        This Final Judgment applies to:
        (A) the Defendant and to its successors and assigns, and to all 
    other persons (including VSP panel doctors) in active concert or 
    participation with any of them, who have received actual notice of the 
    Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise; and
        (B) the Most Favored Nation Clause, as defined in Section II(C) of 
    this Final Judgment, but to no other clause of the VSP Panel Doctor's 
    Agreement, VSP policy, or VSP practice.
    
    IV
    
    Prohibited Conduct
    
        Except as permitted in Section V, Defendant is enjoined and 
    restrained from:
        (A) maintaining, adopting, or enforcing a Most Favored Nation 
    Clause in any VSP Panel Doctor's Agreement, corporate bylaws, policies, 
    rules, regulations, or by any other means or methods;
        (B) maintaining, adopting, or enforcing any policy or practice 
    linking payments made by VSP to any VSP panel doctor to fees charged by 
    the doctor to any non-VSP patient or any non-VSP plan;
        (C) differentiating VSP's payments to, or other treatment of, any 
    VSP panel doctor because the doctor charges any fee lower than that 
    charged by the doctor to VSP, to any non-VSP patient or to any non-VSP 
    plan;
        (D) taking any action to discourage any VSP panel doctor from 
    participating in any non-VSP plan or from offering or charging any fee 
    lower than that paid to the doctor by VSP to any non-VSP patient or any 
    non-VSP plan;
        (E) monitoring or auditing the fees any VSP panel doctor charges 
    any non-VSP patient or any non-VSP plan; and
        (F) communicating in any fashion with any VSP panel doctor 
    regarding the doctor's participation in any non-VSP plan or regarding 
    the doctor's fees charged to any non-VSP patient or to any non-VSP 
    plan.
    
    V
    
    Permitted Activities
    
        Despite any prohibition contained in Section IV of this Final 
    Judgment,
        (A) for the purpose of calculating payments to be made to its panel 
    doctors, Defendant may request annually that a VSP panel doctor report 
    the doctor's usual and customary fee, for each applicable service, 
    provided by the doctor during a preceding period of up to 12 months 
    ending no later than 2 months before the information must be reported, 
    provided that such information is requested uniformly from all panel 
    doctors within a meaningful geographic area comprising zip codes;
        (B) Defendant may calculate the fees that it pays to a VSP panel 
    doctor for services rendered to VSP patients based on the panel 
    doctor's usual and customary fees, provided that Defendant employs a 
    uniform method of calculation at least within each meaningful 
    geographic area, comprising zip codes, in which it does business;
        (C) only for the purposes of verifying whether the information 
    reported by a VSP panel doctor, pursuant to Section V(A), is accurate 
    or of investigating a VSP panel doctor's suspected excessive billing to 
    VSP, upon reasonable belief that the reported fees may be inaccurate or 
    excessive, and subject to the reasonable convenience of the VSP panel 
    doctor, Defendant may audit the VSP panel doctor's charges to patients;
        (D) consistently with Sections IV (C) and (D), Defendant may devise 
    and utilize a fee system for doctors who apply for VSP panel membership 
    after the date of this Final Judgment that is different from the system 
    used to compensate current panel doctors, and that system may be based 
    on the average fees VSP pays in a meaningful geographic area comprising 
    zip codes;
        (E) consistently with Sections IV (C) and (D), Defendant may elect 
    to maintain current fees for panel doctors at their existing levels and 
    may base any future fee increases on the Consumer Price Index, VSP's 
    own financial growth, or any other meaningful economic indicator;
        (F) consistently with Sections IV (C) and (D), Defendant may impose 
    penalties on panel doctors who have misrepresented their usual and 
    customary fees; and
        (G) when acting as an agent of the Medicare program or any state 
    Medicaid program, Defendant may administer the payment methodologies 
    employed by such programs, provided that any fee information, that VSP 
    is required to collect from its panel doctors in administering any such 
    payment methodology, is not considered by VSP in determining the fees 
    that it pays its panel doctors for services rendered to patients not 
    covered by these programs.
    
    VI
    
    Nullification
    
        The Most Favored Nation Clause shall be null and void and Defendant 
    shall impose no further obligation arising from it on any VSP panel 
    doctor. Within 60 days of entry of this Final Judgment, Defendant shall 
    disseminate to each present VSP panel doctor an addendum to the Panel 
    Doctor's Agreement, nullifying the Most Favored Nation Clause, and 
    Defendant shall eliminate the Most Favored Nation Clause from all Panel 
    Doctor's Agreements entered into after entry of this Final Judgment.
    
    VII
    
    Compliance Measures
    
        The Defendant shall:
        (A) distribute, within 60 days of the entry of this Final Judgment, 
    a copy of this Final Judgment to: (1) all VSP officers and directors; 
    (2) VSP employees who have any responsibility for approving, 
    disapproving, monitoring, recommending, or implementing any provisions 
    in agreements with VSP panel doctors; and (3) all present VSP panel 
    doctors and all former VSP panel doctors whom VSP should reasonably 
    know have resigned because of the Most Favored Nation Clause;
        (B) distribute in a timely manner a copy of this Final Judgment to 
    any officer, director, or employee who succeeds to a position described 
    in Section VII(A) (1) or (2);
        (C) obtain from each present or future officer, director, or 
    employee designated in Section VII(A) (1) or (2), within 60 days of 
    entry of this Final Judgment or of the person's succession to a 
    designated position, a written certification that he or she: (1) Has 
    read, understands, and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final 
    Judgment; and (2) has been advised and understands that his or her 
    failure to comply with this Final Judgment may result in conviction for 
    criminal contempt of court;
        (D) maintain a record of persons to whom the Final Judgment has 
    been distributed and from whom, pursuant to Section VII(C), the 
    certification has been obtained;
        (E) The Defendant shall notify all former VSP panel doctors whom it 
    should reasonably know have resigned because of the Most Favored Nation 
    Clause, that they are reinstated, on terms and conditions that VSP may 
    establish consistently with this Final Judgment, unless they do not 
    desire reinstatement; and
        (F) report to the Plaintiff any violation of the Final Judgment.
    
    [[Page 57020]]
    
    
    VIII
    
    Certification
    
        (A) Within 75 days of the entry of this Final Judgment, the 
    Defendant shall certify to the Plaintiff whether it has: (1) 
    disseminated contractual addenda pursuant to Section VI, (2) 
    distributed the Final Judgment in accordance with Section VII(A), and 
    (3) obtained certifications in accordance with Section VII(C).
        (B) For five years after the entry of this Final Judgment, on or 
    before its anniversary date, the Defendant shall file with the 
    Plaintiff an annual Declaration as to the fact and manner of its 
    compliance with the provisions of Sections IV, V, VI, and VII.
    
    IX
    
    Plaintiff's Access
    
        (A) To determine or secure compliance with this Final Judgment and 
    for no other purpose, duly authorized representatives of the Plaintiff, 
    upon written request of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the 
    Antitrust Division and on reasonable notice to the Defendant made to 
    its principal office, shall be permitted, subject to any legally 
    recognized privilege:
        (1) access during the Defendant's office hours to inspect and copy 
    all documents in the possession or under the control of the Defendant, 
    who may have counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this 
    Final Judgment; and
        (2) subject to the reasonable convenience of the Defendant and 
    without restraint or interference from it, to interview officers, 
    employees or agents of the Defendant, who may have Defendant's counsel 
    and/or their own counsel present, regarding such matters.
        (B) Upon the written request of the Assistant Attorney General in 
    charge of the Antitrust Division made to the Defendant's principal 
    office, the Defendant shall submit such written reports, under oath if 
    requested, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment as 
    may be reasonably requested, subject to any legally recognized 
    privilege.
        (C) No information or documents obtained by the means provided in 
    Section IX shall be divulged by the Plaintiff to any person other than 
    duly authorized representatives of the Executive Branch of the United 
    States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United 
    States is a party, or for the purpose of securing compliance with this 
    Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
        (D) If at the time information or documents are furnished by the 
    Defendant to Plaintiff, the Defendant represents and identifies in 
    writing the material in any such information or documents to which a 
    claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal 
    Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Defendant marks each pertinent page 
    of such material, ``subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) 
    of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,'' then 10 days notice shall be 
    given by Plaintiff to the Defendant prior to divulging such material in 
    any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding) to which the 
    Defendant is not a party.
    
    Further Elements of the Final Judgment
    
        (A) This Final Judgment shall expire five years from the date of 
    its entry.
        (B) Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of 
    enabling either of the parties to this Final Judgment, but not other 
    person, 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, to modify or terminate any of its provisions, to 
    enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
        (C) Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
    
        Dated: ______________
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     United States District Judge
    
    In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Vision Service Plan, 
    Defendant.
    
    [Case No. 1:94CV02693 TPJ]
    
    Revised Competitive Impact Statement
    
    I
    
    Background
    
        Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 
    Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States submits this Revised 
    Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Revised Final 
    Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding. These 
    documents are styled as ``Revised'' because they reflect changes made 
    to a few of the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment, filed on 
    December 15, 1994, as the basis for settling this antitrust lawsuit, 
    and in related portions of the Competitive Impact Statement, filed on 
    January 13, 1995, and published at 60 Fed. Reg. 5110-17 (1995).
        This civil antitrust action commenced on December 15, 1994, when 
    the United States filed a Compliant alleging that Vision Service Plan 
    (VSP), in all or parts of the 46 states and the District of Columbia in 
    which VSP operates vision care plans, entered into agreements with its 
    panel doctors that unreasonably restrain competition by restraining 
    discounting of fees for vision care services in violation of Section 1 
    of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief 
    to enjoin continuance of the violation.
        The previously filed Competitive Impact Statement is incorporated 
    by reference herein, except as modified by this Revised Competitive 
    Impact Statement. The Government has agreed to the revisions of the 
    proposed Final Judgment that are contained in the proposed Revised 
    Final Judgment and outlined below to remedy certain problems VSP has 
    experienced while operating under the terms of the proposed Final 
    Judgment since it was filed, pursuant to a Stipulation with the 
    Government, pending the Court's approval of the Final Judgment.
    
    II
    
    Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment
    
    A. Definitions
        A definition of ``VSP panel doctor'' has been added as Section 
    II(G) of the proposed Revised Final Judgment to clarify that to the 
    extent provisions of the Final Judgment prohibit VSP from taking, or 
    permit VSP to take, specified actions regarding the doctors on its 
    panel, those provisions apply in the same manner also to doctors who 
    have applied for panel membership. In addition, the definitions of 
    ``modal fee'' and ``median fee,'' which had been Sections II (F) and 
    (G) of the original proposed Final Judgment, have been deleted because, 
    as explained below, VSP will no longer collect or use information 
    concerning the modal or median fees of its panel doctors in calculating 
    payments to be made to them. A definition of ``usual and customary 
    fees'' has been added as a new Section II(F) because, as explained 
    below, VSP will be permitted to collect and use information concerning 
    the usual and customary fees that its panel doctors charge in 
    calculating VSP's payments to them.
    B. Permitted Activities and Obligations
        The proposed Revised Final Judgment modifies Section V of the 
    original proposed Final Judgment. Generally, Section V permits VSP to 
    undertake prescribed activities in determining payments to its panel 
    doctors that could otherwise violate applicable injunctive provisions 
    of Section IV. The proposed 
    
    [[Page 57021]]
    Revised Final Judgment adds a new Section V(G) and revises Sections V 
    (A), (B), (C), and (F).
        The addition of Section V(G) is the primary basis for submitting 
    the Revised Final Judgment. Section V(G) permits VSP to implement the 
    reimbursement methodologies of any Medicare program or any state 
    Medicaid program that it may administer. VSP acts as the agent for 
    those programs in several states, but, in negotiating the proposed 
    Final Judgment, VSP simply overlooked the Final Judgment's possible 
    restriction upon its ability to carry out its obligations to those 
    governmental programs. Section V(G) of the proposed Revised Final 
    Judgment, therefore, makes clear that nothing in the Judgment should be 
    construed to prevent VSP from gathering fee information required by 
    Medicare or Medicaid, while precluding VSP from using that fee 
    information in setting the fees that VSP pays its panel doctors for 
    providing services to VSP patients not covered by Medicare or Medicaid 
    programs.
        Sections V (A), (B), (C), and (F) of the proposed Revised Final 
    Judgment have been changed to reflect that VSP will no longer maintain 
    the option, contained in the original proposed Final Judgment, to 
    calculate the payments made to its panel doctors based on a doctor's 
    modal or median fee and to collect and, if warranted, verify the 
    accuracy of, the fee data from its panel doctors needed to make such 
    calculations. Pursuant to revised Sections V (A), (B), (C) and (F), VSP 
    will now merely retain the option of calculating the fees that it pays 
    panel doctors based on their usual and customary fees, and it will no 
    longer be permitted to request panel doctors annually to report 
    ``sufficient information'' or, if warranted, verify the accuracy of the 
    reported information, to enable VSP ``to calculate'' a doctor's modal 
    or median fee. Rather, VSP will simply be permitted to ask each panel 
    doctor to report annually only the doctor's usual and customary fees 
    before any discounts are applied, and it will be allowed, if warranted, 
    to verify only that fee information. These changes will substantially 
    reduce both the level of detail of fee information that VSP will be 
    permitted to obtain routinely from its panel doctors and the resultant 
    reporting requirements it may impose on VSP panel doctors.
        VSP requested these changes because of difficulties encountered 
    during the past several months in trying to calculate the modal and 
    median fees of its panel doctors pursuant to the terms of the original 
    proposed Final Judgment. Based on that experience, VSP has concluded 
    that it does not routinely need to obtain more detailed fee information 
    from its panel doctors than an annual report of each doctor's usual and 
    customary fees, as now provided by Sections V (A) and (B) of the 
    proposed Revised Final Judgment. The Government is amendable to making 
    these requested changes because they narrow the scope of activities 
    permitted by VSP under the Final Judgment and raise no competitive 
    concerns.
    
    III
    
    Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Revised Final 
    Judgment
    
        As provided by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, any 
    person believing that the proposed Revised Final Judgment should be 
    modified may submit written comments to Gail Kursh, Chief; Professions 
    & Intellectual Property Section/Health Care Task Force; Department of 
    Justice; Antitrust Division; 600 E Street, N.W.; Room 9300; Washington, 
    D.C. 20530, within the 60-day period provided by the Act. Comments 
    received, along with comments already received on the previously 
    published Competitive Impact Statement, and the Government'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 Paragraph 2 of 
    the Stipulation, to withdraw its consent to the proposed Revised Final 
    Judgment at any time before its entry if the Department should 
    determine that some modification of the Judgment is necessary to the 
    public interest. The proposed Revised Final Judgment itself 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.
    
    IV
    
    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 Revised Final Judgment. 
    Consequently, none are filed herewith.
    
        Dated: ______________
    
          Respectfully submitted,
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steven Kramer
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Richard S. Martin,
    Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 600 E Street, 
    N.W., Room 9420, Washington, D.C. 20530, (202) 307-0997.
    
    In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Vision Service Plan, 
    Defendant.
    
    [Case No. 1:94CV02693 TPJ]
    
    Certificate of Service
    
        I certify that I caused copies of the Revised Final Judgment, 
    Revised Competitive Impact Statement and Superseding Stipulation to be 
    served on October ____, 1995, by Federal Express to: Barclay L. 
    Westerfeld, General Counsel, Vision Service Plan, 3333 Quality Drive, 
    Rancho Cordova, California 95670, and by courier to: John J. Miles, 
    Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, 1401 H Street, NW., Fifth Floor, 
    Washington, DC 20005-2110.
    
        Dated: ______________.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steven Kramer,
    Attorney, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 600 E Street, NW., 
    Room 9420, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307-1029.
    [FR Doc. 95-27939 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
11/13/1995
Department:
Antitrust Division
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-27939
Pages:
57017-57021 (5 pages)
PDF File:
95-27939.pdf