Justice Department Requires Verizon to Divest Assets to Acquire Alltel
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.08
On October 30, 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed to back the $28.1 million merger between Verizon Communications Corp. (Verizon) and Alltel Corp, so long as Verizon divested assets in 100 areas in 22 states where its operations overlap with Alltel's. The DOJ stated that the proposed transaction would have "substantially lessened competition" to the detriment of consumers in those areas and "would likely result in higher prices, lower quality and reduced network investments." Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge if DOJ's Antitrust Division, said that "the divestitures required … are among the most extensive required by the Department in a wireless case." The DOJ, along with Attorneys General of seven states, filed a civil lawsuit to block the proposed acquisition, and simultaneously filed the proposed settlement to resolve the competitive concerns. The complaint states that Verizon and Alltel are each other's closest competitor for a significant set of customers in 94 Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs), as defined by the FCC. The proposed settlement requires divestitures in these 94 areas. Verizon is the second largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the US; Alltel is the fifth larges service provider. The transaction is subject to review by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
