Justice Dept. Lawyer Faces Wrath of Judge Who's Still Weighing CVS-Aetna Deal
“You need to slow this down,” U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington said Thursday. “You're like a freight train out of control.” CVS and Aetna announced the completion of their merger on Wednesday, following the US Justice Department's approval in October.
November 29, 2018 at 02:20 PM
4 minute read
A Washington federal judge excoriated a U.S. Justice Department lawyer Thursday for keeping him “in the dark” about the consummation of CVS Health's $69 billion acquisition of Aetna Inc. and urged the companies to wait for a final judgment on the deal before integrating their operations.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, appearing livid at times, accused the Justice Department and the two companies of treating his antitrust review of the acquisition as a “rubber stamp operation.” And he expressed concern about how the integration of CVS and Aetna, which completed their merger Wednesday, would be unwound in the event that he rejects their merger.
“You need to slow this down,” Leon said. “You're like a freight train out of control.”
The Justice Department approved the deal in October on the condition that Aetna sell its Medicare Part D prescription drug plan business.
Leon had scheduled Thursday's hearing in response to the Justice Department's request to appoint Julie Myers Wood, chief executive of the the monitoring firm Guidepost Solutions, to oversee the insurance giant divestiture of that business to WellCare Health Plans Inc. After receiving the motion to appoint Myers as the monitor, Leon said he “kind of got this uneasy feeling about being kept in the dark, kind of like a mushroom.”
Leon asked Justice Department lawyer Jay Owen about the “practical consequences” of the merger. When Owen said CVS and Aetna had closed their deal, Leon sarcastically replied, “Thanks for telling me.”
Leon, who approved AT&T Inc.'s acquisition of Time Warner in June, stressed that he had not issued a final judgment approving the CVS-Aetna merger and noted that the public comment period on the Justice Department's settlement allowing the deal was not set to close until mid-December. The judge pointed to what he described as a “140-page” opposition filed by the American Medical Association, saying that he would take comments and other evidence into account before handing down a final ruling on the acquisition.
“Let's make it clear, Mr. Owen: This court's not a rubber stamp,” Leon said.
“Who knows where this is going. No one knows,” Leon said later in the hearing. “And you all are treating this like a rubber stamp operation.”
Owen declined to comment after the hearing.
Lawyers for CVS and Aetna were not called to speak during the hearing. CVS was represented in court Thursday by Dechert partner Rani Habash. Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Howard Shelanski and Jesse Solomon appeared for Aetna.
Leon suggested his ruling might not come for several months. He asked, “If I rule against it, how do you untangle seven months of integration?”
“Very difficult,” Leon said, answering his own question.
Owen described the possibility of the deal's rejection as a “business risk” that the companies were bearing.
Leon urged the Justice Department to meet with Aetna and CVS and consider how to account for the possibility of the merger being rejected, before scheduling a follow-up hearing for Dec. 3.
When Owens asked if Leon would still appoint Myers to oversee Aetna's divestiture, the judge said the companies also needed to consider what ramifications a denial of the merger would have for the insurer's planned sale of the prescription drug plan business to WellCare.
“You need to think about that, frankly,” Leon said. “See you Monday.”
|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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute read'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 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