On March 30, United States District Court Judge Denise Page Hood
(E.D. Mich.) handed Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan a victory,
dismissing an antitrust action filed against it by the City of
Pontiac in which the City alleged that Blue Cross's use of
"most favored nation" clauses in its provider contracts
violated the antitrust laws. (City of Pontiac v. Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 11-10276, Eastern District
The action, which was filed by the City in January of 2011
against Blue Cross and twenty-two Michigan hospitals, alleged that
the defendants' inclusion of "most favored nation"
clauses in their provider contracts, requiring the hospitals to
charge other insurers more than they charged to Blue Cross for
provider services, constituted a per se violation of the
Ruling on Blue Cross's motion to dismiss the Complaint,
Judge Hood held that the City's antitrust allegations did not
state a claim. Specifically, Judge Hood noted that the City had
pled a per se violation, and that while some
horizontal agreements are subject to per se
condemnation, "all vertical price restraints are
judged under the rule of reason." Because "Blue Cross and
the hospital defendants are at different levels of the
market," with Blue Cross acting as a purchaser of hospital
services from the hospital defendants, "the relationship
between Blue Cross and the hospital defendants is vertical."
Accordingly, the Court held that "in light of the City of
Pontiac's reliance on a per se violation analysis,
which this Court rejects . . . the Court finds that the City of
Pontiac fails to state a plausible claim under the Sherman Act and
the Michigan antitrust laws."
After finding that the City of Pontiac had also failed to allege
a claim of unjust enrichment, the Court dismissed the City's
complaint, bringing this portion of the closely watched MFN actions
to a close. (Notably, litigation between Blue Cross of Michigan and
the DOJ over the use of most favored nation clauses, which is the
subject of a separate action, continues at this time, as do other
related civil actions. In the DOJ case the government contends that
Blue Cross's contracts constitute a "rule of reason"
antitrust violation which, unlike a per se violation, will
require that the DOJ also prove that Blue Cross's alleged
conduct has had anticompetitive effects in the market, a more
difficult task for an antitrust plaintiff ).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP, Chancellor Strine of the Delaware Chancery Court recently reaffirmed that the target company in a Delaware merger is the sole holder of the attorney-client privilege to communications with its counsel and the privilege cannot be claimed by the seller.
In a challenge brought both by private plaintiffs and the government, a court has ruled that a health system’s acquisition of a competing physician group practice violated the antitrust laws where the transaction resulted in the health system employing 80 percent of the primary care physicians in one area.
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently announced that it will be hosting a two-day workshop in Washington, DC on March 20-21 to examine competition issues related to current developments in the U.S. health care industry.
Last November, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") with the "concurrence" of the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, and over the strenuous objection of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ("PhRMA"), issued final changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act premerger notification rules limited solely to pharmaceutical industry.
The Hart Scott Rodino Act (HSR) provides a federal regulatory scheme to monitor the acquisition of voting securities and assets in an effort to monitor whether such acquisitions may have anticompetitive effects on the marketplace