Aetna Shareholder Sues to Block Takeover by CVS Health
An Aetna Inc. shareholder has sued to block the proposed $69 billion takeover by CVS Health, claiming that the "unfair and inadequate" deal would shortchange shareholders.
January 18, 2018 at 04:29 PM
3 minute read
The Aetna world headquarters in downtown Hartford, Connecticut, on Sept. 22, 2011. Photo credit: shutterstock
An Aetna Inc. shareholder has sued to block a proposed $69 billion takeover by CVS Health, claiming that the “unfair and inadequate” deal would shortchange Aetna shareholders.
Aetna's common stock value, which has been pegged with an implied per share equity value as high as $233, represents a premium of about 113 percent over the $207.94-per-share value in the contemplated merger deal, the Aetna shareholder, Olivier Miramond, said in a civil complaint filed Tuesday in federal district court in New Haven, Connecticut, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and demanding a jury trial.
“The merger consideration in the proposed transaction is unfair and inadequate, because, among other things, the intrinsic value of the company and its common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered given the company's prospects for future growth and
earnings,” according to the complaint. “As a result, the proposed transaction will deny class members their right to fully share equitably in the true value of the company.”
Miramond is seeking to proceed in a class action on behalf of all Aetna shareholders affected by the merger plan, which still must be approved by federal regulators. In addition to seeking financial damages, he also is asking the court that the yet-to-be-scheduled shareholder vote on the deal be delayed until Aetna has disclosed all relevant financial information to the shareholders.
According to the complaint, in order to convince the shareholders to approve the deal, Aetna filed “materially incomplete and misleading” information with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission about the company's financial projections and valuation analyses. In addition, a $2.1 billion termination fee that Aetna must pay CVS if the company takes a better offer is “unreasonably high for this type of transaction and strongly discourages any other bidder from coming forward,” the complaint said.
Also named as defendants are Aetna chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini and 11 other board members of the Hartford, Connecticut-based health insurer. An Aetna spokesperson declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
CVS's planned acquisition, announced by the Woonsocket, Rhode Island-based retail pharmacy giant last month, would constitute a so-called vertical merger since the two companies do not operate in exactly the same industry, though federal regulators are still likely to take a close look at the deal, corporate lawyers have said.
Aetna serves an estimated 44.6 million subscribers, according to the company. CVS Health has 9,700 retail pharmacies and more than 1,100 walk-in medical clinics. It is one of the largest pharmacy benefits managers with nearly 90 million plan members, as well as a senior pharmacy care business serving more than 1 million patients per year, and a stand-alone Medicare Part D prescription drug plan.
Juan Monteverde of Monteverde & Associates in New York and Shannon Hopkins of Levi & Korsinsky in Stamford, Connecticut, are representing the plaintiff in the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250