CVS Adds Williams & Connolly Trial Lawyers to Dechert Team as Judge Digs Into Aetna Merger
A team from Williams & Connolly recently joined Dechert in advocating for the CVS-Aetna merger, as a judge in Washington raises his concerns.
December 20, 2018 at 06:45 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
CVS Health Corp. turned to Williams & Connolly trial lawyers this month as its $69 billion merger with Aetna Inc. faced an unexpected degree of scrutiny from a federal judge, who harangued the companies and the U.S. Justice Department for appearing to treat him as a “rubber stamp operation.”
The hiring of Williams & Connolly partner Enu Mainigi, along with two other lawyers at the firm, followed a hearing at which U.S. District Judge Richard Leon lambasted a Justice Department attorney for keeping him “in the dark” about CVS and Aetna combining their operations before the merger received any formal approval. The Justice Department in October approved the merger, with conditions.
Mainigi, working with Williams & Connolly partners Craig Singer and Jonathan Pitt, co-chairman of the firm's antitrust practice, joined a team from Dechert that had been representing CVS in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
CVS declined to comment on the court appearances of additional outside counsel. Mainigi was not immediately reached for comment.
According to Mainigi's profile on the firm's website, she previously defended CVS Caremark in a whistleblower lawsuit accusing the company of Medicare fraud. The CVS subsidiary prevailed against the lawsuit in a Philadelphia federal court, winning summary judgment in a decision that was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Leon has suggested that CVS and Aetna keep their operations separate while he reviews their October settlement with the Justice Department, which allowed the $69 billion deal to proceed on the condition that Aetna sell off its Medicare drug plan business.
To address Leon's concerns, CVS and Aetna have volunteered to keep some aspects of their operations separate. Aetna, for instance, is retaining control over its prices and what it sells, and the two companies are maintaining a firewall to prevent the exchange of competitively sensitive information.
At a hearing Tuesday, Leon proposed having an outside compliance monitor ensure that the two companies take those steps to stay apart—a move that would expand the duties of Julie Myers Wood, chief executive of the firm Guidepost Solutions. Wood was appointed earlier to oversee the divestiture of Aetna's prescription drug plan business to WellCare Health Plans Inc.
Mainigi pushed back against Leon's suggestion, saying she was unsure “how easy it would be to have a monitor come in to monitor these particular commitments.”
“And I think it would also—you know, could be a bit more time-consuming than we might want to engage in for not a significant amount of value,” she said.
Leon questioned whether the added task would overly burden Wood.
“Perhaps it's my lack of knowledge or perhaps it's your lack of knowledge that would lead me to think that this wouldn't be really that difficult for her to do,” Leon responded. “I mean, she essentially would be contacting the appropriate parties within the companies to make sure that these four things are continuing to be implemented and then report to the court periodically, say, every 90 days, that they are. I don't view that as a particularly cumbersome or even intricate responsibility. Maybe I'm missing something.”
In a letter to the judge Thursday, Mainigi said there is “no need for an order from this court or oversight from a monitor.” But she said CVS would commit to filing declarations every three months certifying under oath that it was taking steps to keep certain operations apart as the merger proceeds.
Leon has also raised questions about the thoroughness of the Justice Department's review of the deal. The Justice Department has argued that the scope of Leon's review is limited to what antitrust enforcers found problematic about the deal. Citing the Tunney Act, a federal law that subjects merger settlements to court approval, the Justice Department has argued that Leon has the authority to reject the proposed settlement but cannot prevent the two companies from combining their operations in the midst of his review.
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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readAre Corporate Counsel Ready for Election Risks, at Polls and Beyond?
With Potential Whistleblowers Around Every Corner, Companies Under Pressure to Sharpen Compliance
5 minute readTrending 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