Anthem, Cigna Pay $3M in Legal Fees to States That Sued to Block Merger
The plaintiff states will divide the settlement funds. California, Connecticut, New York, Georgia and the District of Columbia were among the states that challenged the proposed $54 billion tie-up.
April 06, 2018 at 01:41 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Eleven states and the District of Columbia will receive nearly $3 million in legal fees as part of an agreement following antitrust litigation that successfully blocked the proposed $54 billion merger of Anthem Inc. and Cigna Corp.
California, Connecticut, New York, Georgia and the District of Columbia were among the states that challenged the proposed tie-up in Washington federal district court. The settlement agreement says the $2.975 million payment for fees and costs will be paid to the state of Maryland, which “will be responsible for disbursing the funds to the other plaintiff states as they may agree among themselves.”
Messages left with Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh's office were not immediately returned Friday.
Lawyers for the plaintiff states filed a proposed order in Washington federal district court on Thursday announcing the fee settlement. The amount of the fees did not appear in the proposed order “at the request of Anthem and Cigna,” lawyers for the plaintiff states said in the court filing.
Charles Rule at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, a lawyer for Cigna, was not immediately reached for comment. Anthem's lead trial attorney, Christopher Curran of White & Case, also was not immediately reached.
Thomas Zielinski, the general counsel to Indianapolis-based Anthem, signed the settlement with Nicole Jones, general counsel to Bloomfield, Connecticut-based Cigna. The companies agreed to split the payment equally.
The state plaintiffs in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice sued in July 2016 in Washington federal district court to block the deal. The proposed merger would have created the largest health insurance company in the country. The plaintiffs argued at trial that competition creates innovation.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia blocked the merger in February 2017. The insurance giants quickly appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. When the high court denied the petition in June 2017, Aetna and Cigna abandoned their merger plans.
George Jepsen, the Connecticut attorney general, said in 2016 that his office had spent a year working with law enforcement counterparts to review the proposed merger. Rachel Davis, an assistant attorney general, was a lead trial lawyer for Connecticut in the case.
That work, Jepsen said, included “conducting numerous stakeholder interviews, joining in multiple depositions of party representatives, reviewing thousands of documents and participating in meetings with both parties.” Jepsen said in a statement then: “This merger would substantially lessen competition for the provision of health care insurance services.”
Then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement at the time the lawsuit was filed: “We must not allow insurance companies to grow their profits at the expense of consumers. By joining this lawsuit, I urge the court to block this proposed merger.”
A message to California Deputy Attorney General Paula Gibson, a signatory on the agreement with other lawyers for the state plaintiffs, was also not returned.
Mike Scarcella contributed reporting from Washington.
The settlement agreement is posted below:
Read more:
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 AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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