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. JK, Thanks for your comments. I suppose your question of whether or not a more expensive but potentially better MRI quality is worth it depends upon whom you ask. If a radiologist misses a significant problem because of imaging quality issues, then maybe the extra cost would have been worth it. That is something a patient has to decide for him/herself. That being said, I too want more fair and competitive pricing and transparency from hospitals!

  2. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  3. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  4. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  5. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.