WellPoint dragged into Goldman Sachs suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

WellPoint Inc.’s $4.9 billion offer for Virginia-based Amerigroup Inc. apparently wasn’t the only—or even the most lucrative—bid for the Medicaid managed care company.

But it was the deal most likely to come to fruition before a key deadline for a big payout for Goldman Sachs & Co., according to a shareholder lawsuit filed Aug. 16 against Goldman and the Amerigroup board of directors.

The lawsuit, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleges that New York-based Goldman Sachs was due to receive $233.7 million from Amerigroup through a complex derivative transaction if it brokered a sale of the company before Aug. 13, according to a report from Reuters.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of public employee retirement funds in Michigan and Louisiana, says Goldman was due to earn fees of just $18.7 million for its work on the deal itself. It seeks to block the WellPoint-Amerigroup deal from closing until the terms of the agreement are improved.

There was another suitor called Company D in Amerigroup’s narrative of the negotiations, which it disclosed on Aug. 7 in a securities filing. Company D’s offer was higher than WellPoint’s, according to the lawsuit, but faced greater antitrust issues in some states, which would have taken time to work out.

"By recommending a quick deal with WellPoint as opposed to Company D or any of the other interested suitors, Goldman kept alive its chance of receiving a windfall profit on the derivative transaction," states the lawsuit.

The claim received added credibility on Monday when Hartford-based Aetna Inc., a competitor to WellPoint, announced a $5.6 billion deal to acquire Coventry Health Care, a Maryland-based competitor of Amerigroup in the Medicaid managed care business.

WellPoint’s deal for Amerigroup was widely praised by analysts and investors despite the high price, a 43-percent premium over where Amerigroup’s stock was trading before the agreement.

“I’m Gonna Make Him An Offer He Can’t Refuse” is how Citi analyst Carl McDonald titled his report on the deal.

“We don’t anticipate another bidder will top WellPoint’s offer,” McDonald wrote in a research note on July 9, the day the deal was announced. “WellPoint is paying a very full price in this deal, giving Amerigroup credit for much of its anticipated growth over the next few years.”

The $92 per share WellPoint agreed to pay was far higher than its initial offer of $83 per share, but a bit lower than the $93.50 that Amerigroup executives asked for, according to their narrative of the negotiations.

After the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the option not to expand their Medicaid eligibility to include 16 million more Americans, WellPoint countered with an offer of $90 per share. The two companies eventually settled on $92 per share.

The narrative of negotiations states that Amerigroup’s executives drew up presentations on five potential buyers, including WellPoint, and that Amerigroup CEO Jim Carlson approached all of them about some sort of “partnership.” The talks with WellPoint and Company D were the only ones that showed enough interest for Amerigroup’s board to conclude they would lead to an “attractive” purchase offer.

Maureen McDonnell, a spokeswoman for Amerigroup, and Michael DuVally, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, declined to comment to Reuters on Friday. Jill Becher, a spokeswoman for WellPoint, did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.