Court Issues Final Consent Judgment On United-Sierra Acquisition
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.16.08
On September 24, 2008, the federal district in Washington, D.C. entered a final consent judgment resolving antitrust allegations concerning UnitedHealth Group's acquisition of Sierra Health Services. Consistent with the judgment's terms, United had already divested its individual Medicare Advantage product line in the Las Vegas, Nevada area shortly after the acquisition closed earlier this year.
The court rejected arguments by the American Medical Association and the Service Employees International Union, submitted under the Tunney Act review process for antitrust consent decrees, that the consent judgment was inadequate and that they should be permitted to present further evidence to the court in additional hearings. The judge ruled that the divestiture requirements of the consent judgment sufficiently addressed the Department of Justice's complaint allegation that the acquisition would harm competition in an alleged Medicare Advantage market. As for the objectors' claims that the acquisition would create undue power for United in the purchase of health care providers' services and in the sale of commercial health insurance products in Las Vegas, the court explained that its review of the consent judgment's adequacy "is limited to the scope of the complaint" and that the Department of Justice had not alleged such harms in its complaint. In oral argument, the court also noted that the Nevada Insurance Commissioner and the Nevada Attorney General also did not challenge the merger on those grounds. Crowell & Moring partner Art Lerner represented United and Sierra in the court's Tunney Act review of the proposed final judgment.
After entry of the judgment in Washington, D.C., the federal district court in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 8, 2008 approved a similar stipulated final judgment resolving allegations by the Nevada Attorney General concerning alleged loss of competition in Medicare Advantage products.
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
