Cornerstone Research worked with counsel for a large health insurance provider that had completed an acquisition of another health insurer.
Cornerstone Research worked with counsel for a large health insurance provider that had completed an acquisition of another health insurer. At the time of this acquisition, both providers were creating pharmacy networks for the newly introduced Medicare Part D, and both had negotiated separate contracts with the plaintiff, an institutional pharmacy. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants conspired to coordinate their Medicare Part D negotiations, and to use a contract that was less favorable to the plaintiff after the merger closing.
Summary judgment was granted in favor of our client on all claims.
Cornerstone Research and a law professor with expertise in mergers and acquisitions analyzed the terms of the merger agreement. A comparison of the language at issue in the merger agreement to language in comparable merger agreements demonstrated that the merger agreement at issue was not unusually restrictive, and thus, it was unlikely to have been structured intentionally to have the alleged anticompetitive effects. Summary judgment was granted in favor of our client on all claims.