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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
