Humana Calls FTC Subpoena a 'Fishing Expedition,' and Then Gets Sued
A Washington federal judge has set a showdown for Thursday between Humana Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission over whether the insurer will be forced to disclose documents the agency says it needs for its investigation of Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.'s proposed $7 billion acquisition of Rite Aid Corp.
June 20, 2017 at 04:06 PM
9 minute read
A Washington federal judge has set a showdown for Thursday between Humana Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission over whether the insurer will be forced to disclose documents the agency says it needs for its investigation of Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.'s proposed $7 billion acquisition of Rite Aid Corp.
Humana pushed back against an FTC subpoena demanding documents the agency has said will help it “understand the competitive impact” of the Walgreens-Rite Aid tie-up. Humana, represented by the law firm Wiley Rein, argued that the FTC was asking for irrelevant documents and that the agency's demand would overly burden a company that is not directly involved in the Walgreens-Rite Aid deal.
The FTC is not backing down. In a rare “emergency petition” on Monday, the agency asked a Washington federal judge to enforce the subpoena—a push that could signal the agency is gearing up to challenge Walgreens and Rite Aid's merger plans. U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey of the District of Columbia has set a hearing for Thursday afternoon.
A lawyer for Humana, Wiley Rein partner Richard Smith, co-chairman of the firm's litigation group, declined to comment Tuesday.
The FTC said it needs the Humana records by June 26, noting that Walgreens and Rite Aid could execute their deal—combining two of the three largest pharmacy chains in the country—as early as July 7. “Between now and then,” the agency said, regulators must decide whether to challenge the deal as potentially anti-competitive. “As a result, time is of the essence,” FTC lawyers wrote.
“Any delay in the resolution of the petition may limit the commission's ability to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the transaction,” the agency lawyers said. “Humana's unexplained refusal to comply with the commission's subpoena hampers the commission's ability to evaluate the proposed transaction and determine what action is in the public interest.”
The FTC's document request related to Humana's Medicare prescription drug plans, which feature Wal-Mart as the preferred in-network pharmacy. The subpoena also demanded the company's communications with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services “on seven broad topics,” Humana said last month in a petition to limit the document requests.
Humana challenged the subpoena as “a quintessential example of a fishing expedition by the government for irrelevant documents, with the full cost of that expedition being foisted upon Humana, a non-party.”
“The subpoena is grossly overbroad, and many of the specifications are entirely unrelated to the FTC's investigation of the proposed acquisition,” Smith wrote in a filing on May 16 at the Federal Trade Commission. He added: “The costs that Humana, a non-party, will be forced to endure in an effort to isolate, collect, process, search for, review, and produce the documents demanded by the FTC are enormous, while the benefit to the FTC, if any, is paltry.”
Humana's lawyers are going back to the same court they camped out in for weeks not so long ago. A judge in January granted a preliminary injunction blocking Aetna Inc.'s proposed acquisition of Humana, prompting the companies to abandon their merger plans.
Copyright National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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 All11 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
3 minute read'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute read'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ClaimClam Wanted to Boost Class Action Claims Rates. But Judges and Attorneys Fought Back
- 2'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
- 311 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
- 4In-House Moves of Month: Discover Fills Awkward CLO Opening, Allegion GC Lasts Just 3 Months
- 5Delaware Court Holds Stance on Musk's $55.8B Pay Rescission, Awards Shareholder Counsel $345M
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