A federal judge halted Anthem’s bid to acquire Cigna for $54 billion this evening, ruling the deal between the insurance giants can’t go forward because it would illegally hurt competition.
US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded that the merger, which would create the country’s largest insurance company, would stifle competition for large employers in a market dominated by just four insurers, including Anthem and Cigna.
The Justice Department successfully argued that the deal would eliminate an innovative, growing competitor in Cigna, and that the savings promised by Anthem were either illusory or not contingent on the merger.
The federal government further argued that acrimony between the would-be partners — which has persisted for at least a year — undercut their claims about savings resulting from the deal.
Anthem had argued that the merger would create $3 billion in savings that would largely be passed on to customers through lower rates. The company also pointed to emerging competitors, including private insurance exchanges, as evidence that there would continue to be vigorous competition for national accounts.
The arguments were ultimately unsuccessful. “The evidence has also shown that the merger is likely to result in higher prices, and that it will have other anticompetitive effects: it will eliminate the two firms’ vigorous competition against each other for national accounts, reduce the number of national carriers available to respond to solicitations in the future, and diminish the prospects for innovation in the market,” the court’s summary read.
Anthem can appeal the ruling, but it faces a tight timeline. At the end of April, either of the merging companies can pull the plug on the deal, and Cigna is expected to do so immediately. That would trigger a $1.85 billion breakup fee that Anthem would owe to Cigna.
Full Content: The Wall Street Journal
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Massachusetts AG Sues Insulin Makers and PBMs Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Apple and Amazon Avoid Mass Lawsuit in UK Over Alleged Collusion
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Top Agent Network Drops Antitrust Suit Against National Association of Realtors
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Weil, Gotshal & Manges Strengthens Antitrust Practice with New Partner
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Russian Court Imposes Hefty Fine on Google for Non-Compliance with Content Removal Orders
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand