After Initial Skepticism, Judge Approves CVS-Aetna Merger
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found that the evidence presented to him was enough to ease any antitrust concerns he had.
September 04, 2019 at 06:51 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge who had grilled CVS Health and Aetna Inc. officials as well as industry experts about the health giants' proposed merger on Wednesday gave his seal of approval to the $69 billion acquisition.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon previously appeared skeptical of the merger, particularly after Department of Justice attorneys swiftly presented him with an option to approve the deal after filing their challenge to the merger. He held two days of hearings in June to hear testimony over the potential impact of the merger and at times criticized Main Justice and the companies over their conduct during the deal.
But on Wednesday, Leon found that the evidence presented to him by the health companies was enough to ease any antitrust concerns he had about the major merger, including reduced competition for prescription drug programs.
Leon wrote that while outside groups that opposed the merge shone "a healthy light" on the deal and their concerns, they "did not substantially undermine the parties' public interest position by persuasively demonstrating that their concerns currently exist or are likely to develop."
The two companies said in a joint statement that CVS and Aetna "have been one company since November 2018, and today's action by the district court makes that 100 percent clear."
"We remain focused on transforming the consumer health care experience in America," the statement read.
CVS and Aetna tapped attorneys from several firms to boost their defense of the merger, including lawyers at Williams & Connolly, Dechert and Davis Polk & Wardwell.
Under the terms of the Justice Department settlement, Aetna agreed to divest its Medicare Part D prescription drug programs to WellCare Health Plans Inc., an independent competitor.
Leon found that for each issue of competition raised by the outside parties, such as potential harm to some HIV-AIDS patients and for pharmacy benefit management, the arguments and evidence presented by CVS, Aetna and the Justice Department outweighed or disproved those claims.
The outside groups, including the American Medical Association, Consumer Action, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and U.S. PIRG, had challenged the merger over concerns it would impact competition in the health care field and harm patients.
"Although amici raised substantial concerns that warranted serious consideration, CVS's and the government's witnesses, when combined with the existing record, persuasively support why the markets at issue are not only very competitive today, but are likely to remain so post-merger," Leon wrote.
The judge was reviewing the DOJ's settlement that allowed for the merger to take place under the Tunney Act, which allows courts to determine if such settlements are in the public interest.
The two companies wrapped up their merger in November 2018, but a frustrated Leon scolded DOJ attorneys at the time of the public announcement. He asked the parties to hold off from officially working as one company until he gave his final seal of approval.
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 AllBig Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic About M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readNew Merger-Review Process Could Doom Some Deals, Add Headaches, Subjectivity to Others
7 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute readPaul Weiss Lands Skadden Co-Head of Financial Institutions Group in Two-Attorney Move
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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