
Anthem secured its win Monday, May 3, against Cigna’s quest for a US$1.85 billion breakup fee over the collapse of their planned US$54 billion merger, which would have created the world’s largest health insurer, when Delaware’s top court upheld a decision rejecting the fee bid.
The state’s justices affirmed a Delaware Chancery Court decision “on the basis of and for the reasons” given by Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster in his 311-page decision last year, which ruled against each company’s attempts to recoup billions from the other, reported Bloomberg Law.
Anthem had requested US$21 billion from Cigna, which sought US$16 billion in turn, over the deal’s failure in 2017 after the Justice Department successfully challenged it on antitrust grounds.
Although the judge held that neither side was entitled to damages, he largely adopted Anthem’s view of the case, saying Cigna sought to sink the deal because Anthem would have controlled the combined company, which Cigna had viewed as a merger of equals.
He rejected Cigna’s bid for a US$1.85 billion breakup fee on that basis.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruling Monday clears the way for separate shareholder litigation to resume against Cigna’s leaders blaming them for the merger’s breakdown.
That suit—filed by a pension fund claiming Cigna’s board and CEO used “black ops style” tactics to “blow up” the deal—had been paused pending the outcome of Cigna’s appeal.
The merger agreement called for Anthem, which runs Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance plans, to acquire Cigna. Anthem’s breach-of-contract suit accused Cigna of undermining the transaction by working to help the government’s antitrust case.
Cigna brought breach-of-contract claims, too, claiming the merger fell apart because of flaws in Anthem’s strategy for getting antitrust clearance, which was its responsibility. Cigna also argued it was entitled to a US$1.85 billion “reverse termination” fee after calling off the deal over those regulatory failures.
Featured News
South Dakota Reaches Settlement With NCAA Ahead of Antitrust Payout Approval
Apr 23, 2025 by
CPI
Judge Allows Yelp’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google to Proceed
Apr 23, 2025 by
CPI
Meta Lawyers Try to Undercut Instagram Co-Founder’s Damaging Testimony
Apr 23, 2025 by
CPI
Tyson Foods, Others Settle Pork Price-Fixing Suit for $64 Million
Apr 23, 2025 by
CPI
NJ Sues RealPage, Landlords Over Rent Collusion
Apr 23, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Mergers in Digital Markets
Apr 21, 2025 by
CPI
Catching a Killer? Six “Genetic Markers” to Assess Nascent Competitor Acquisitions
Apr 21, 2025 by
John Taladay & Christine Ryu-Naya
Digital Decoded: Is There More Scope for Digital Mergers In 2025?
Apr 21, 2025 by
Colin Raftery, Michele Davis, Sarah Jensen & Martin Dickson
AI In the Mix – An Ever-Evolving Approach to Jurisdiction Over Digital Mergers in Europe
Apr 21, 2025 by
Ingrid Vandenborre & Ketevan Zukakishvili
Antitrust Enforcement Errors Due to a Failure to Understand Organizational Capabilities and Dynamic Competition
Apr 21, 2025 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece