CVS-Aetna to keep some business activities while the judge is in the process of connecting
While listening to the Washington Court, D.C., U.S. District Court Richard Leon told the government that he wanted to monitor the government to ensure that CVS continued to operate with the two companies while undergoing full details of the partnership. Companies and Legal Services, who signed the contract in October, until December 20, let Leon know if they would agree with his need for care.
DOJ and CVS have taken a different approach in writing with Leon explaining why companies do not need to continue their operations during the investigation.
While DOJ agrees that Leon's position in reviewing this deal is the greatest way, CVS highlighted the commitment he made to preserve to preserve special projects until Leon reached the final decision.
Leon praised CVS for being "unfit to court." This contrasts with his criticism of DOJ, saying that the section "sounds loudly, sooner and indirectly, and it does not matter."
The DoJ Committee needs to complain about the meeting between early February, and the government believes that information will be available for the final process.
The CVS Enu Mainigi Ministry said that the company would be able to comply with the six-month ban when Leon reviewed, but burying them more than this could prove to be a problem.
Leon told him that he could not make "promises or evaluations" when he could close the workshop.
"Each box is unique," he said.
In its entry, CVS confirmed to Aetna that Aetna's insurance companies are different from CVS and pharmacy store, and former Aetna president Karen Lynch, acting vice president of the CVS Health, will continue to lead the business. Aetna.
Aetna said "will continue to keep track of the prices and products offered on the market," and Aetna's staff will now hold their current responsibility. In addition, CVS Health "has and will maintain the filter saying" to block companies from exchanging "expensive data".
The government on the other hand opposed CVS and Aetna should not be discriminatory while the connection was under the jurisdiction of the court because Aetna launched a medical clinic for Medicare Part D of the medical profession where DOJ's law has filed a rape.
"Even if the court ruled that some parts of the Aetna business should be released, however, the court did not have a law ordering that the business was a separate one," the DOJ Act continued to do law enforcement, suspects that such a move would rob the market and that "interference with the United States could negotiate with specifications designed to protect the competition."
In the same line, the Dov Law dismissed the Tunney Law regime, which the Assembly requested the federal court to investigate on any government co-operation.
"Furthermore, the Tunney Law does not stop you," DOJ said.