|

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently put the kibosh on the proposed mega merger between health insurance giants Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corporation, two of the nation’s four largest insurers. The court concluded that Anthem failed to show how proposed cost efficiencies would offset the harm to competition in affected markets. (United States, et al., v. Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp., No. 17-5024 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

In 2015, Anthem, the second-largest health carrier, which operates the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand in 14 states, agreed to merge with third-largest Cigna, in what would be the biggest-ever merger of health insurers. It would leave Anthem as the surviving company with a controlling share of the merged company’s stock. Within Anthem states, existing Cigna customers could remain with Cigna, but the two insurers would otherwise no longer compete in those states.

The U.S. Department of Justice and several states successfully sued in district court to block the merger on the ground it would substantially lessen competition in affected markets, in violation of the Clayton Act. On appeal, Anthem argued the merger’s efficiencies would outweigh its antiicompetitive effects by reducing the costs of medical claims through lower provider rates, thus lowering Cigna’s rates. The government plaintiffs had argued these projected savings were unverified, not specific to the merger, and would not result in true efficiencies. Continue reading ›

|

When it comes to running a business, legal compliance is essential. Federal and state regulations govern numerous aspects of business, and labor and employment. The state often follows the same regulations, and can have variances which is why it is important to keep abreast with both.  Often enough, compliance for larger corporations is easier to manage when one can hire dedicated professionals and keep attorneys on retainer to help the business stay up-to-date and in compliance with labor laws. Having said that,  a lack of resources doesn’t excuse small businesses from dealing with these important legal issues.

For instance, more recently, the owners of a family-owned business in Sauk City, Wisconsin, are receiving backlash for allowing their children to help inside their bakery. The state is now auditing the business for potentially breaking child labor laws. Generally speaking, the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum age requirements do not apply to minors employed by their parents, or by a person acting as their guardian. An exception to this occurs in mining, manufacturing and occupations where the minimum age requirement of 18 years old applies.  However, there is federal law that restricts the employment and abuse of child workers which are designed to protect the educational opportunities of youth and prohibit their employment in jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety. Continue reading ›

|

Minteq International, Inc. supplies materials to steel-makers. Minteq’s employees are represented by the engineers’ union of the AFL-CIO and covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). In 2012, without bargaining or even notifying the union, the company began requiring new employees to sign noncompete and confidentiality agreements (NCCA) which barred employees from working for Minteq’s competitors for 18 months following their employment and disclosing confidential or proprietary information. They also included nonsolicitation and at-will employment clauses.

In 2014, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Minteq. The National Labor Relations Board found that Minteq violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to afford the employees’ union notice or an opportunity to bargain over Minteq’s unilateral implementation of the NCCA. In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Board’s findings (Minteq International Inc., et al., v. Nat’l Labor Relations Board, No. 16-1276 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

NLRB held that the noncompete agreement was a mandatory subject of bargaining not covered by the CBA. FLSA requires parties to bargain in good faith regarding “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” As such, Minteq’s noncompete/confidentiality agreement was a mandatory subject of bargaining because it directly “settle[s] an aspect of the relationship between the employer and the employees.” (First Nat’l Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981)). Continue reading ›

|

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner made quick work of a recent class action suit brought by glaucoma patients who alleged that Allergan, Inc., and other drugmakers manufactured prescription eyedrops that were too large in order to increase their profits (Eike, et al., v. Allergan, Inc., et al., No. 16-3334, 7th Cir. (2017)). The case was on appeal from a district court ruling certifying eight classes of plaintiffs consisting of Illinois and Missouri residents who alleged that Allergan and six other pharmaceutical companies made eye drops that were unnecessarily large, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Each eyedrop exceeded 16 microliters, beyond the optimal size the plaintiffs contended was necessary for treatment of glaucoma and therefore wasteful because the additional microliters added no therapeutic value, instead serving only to pad the companies’ profits. The plaintiffs sought damages amounting to the difference between the price per drop of the eye drops at their present size and the presumably lower price of smaller drops, multiplied by the number of drops purchased by the class members.  Continue reading ›

|

With the economy still unsteady after the recession, more and more people are attracted to the idea of starting their own business. But one of the biggest challenges when doing that is making sure you have something unique to offer the market.

For people who have spent most of their career working at one company, that’s often all they know. If they’re going to try to branch off on their own, they’d better make sure their new operation is significantly different from their employer’s, or at least has a new approach to the industry. Either way, it’s important to note that just copying and pasting your employer’s business is not only unethical – it’s illegal.

According to officials, David Newman, a 34-year-old trader who worked in Chicago, stole more than 400,000 electronic files from his employer. Those files contained all of WH Trading LLC’s proprietary computer code and trading software. Continue reading ›

|

Getting taken to the cleaners by a dishonest employee or contractor is headache enough for any business, but having  no fraud coverage insurance coverage is a world of hurt.  Businesses are well advised to analyze their policies carefully to make sure they have proper coverage.

In the case of an Indiana telecom company called Telamon, its two different insurance policies provided no relief, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Telamon Corp. v. Charter Oak, No. 16-1205, 7th Cir. (2017)). Telamon engaged independent consultant Juanita B. to provide services, and her role eventually expanded well beyond the original agreement. She was named vice president of major accounts and became senior manager for the company’s business in New York and New Jersey. In that capacity, she oversaw the removal of old telecommunications equipment from AT&T sites to sell to salvagers. Juanita pocketed the profits, for a total of $5.2 million in losses for the company by the time it discovered her scheme.   Continue reading ›

|

In Silicon Valley, the heart of the technology industry, a company’s greatest asset is its talent. Their brains and the information they have access to are priceless, which is why, for many tech companies, it is imperative for them not to allow their employees to take such invaluable information directly to a competitor. It’s also why Waymo, Google’s self-driving car company, is suing Uber and one of Google’s former employees for allegedly stealing trade secrets.

According to Waymo, Anthony Levandowski, who was working on Google’s self-driving vehicle technology, left the company last year after allegedly stealing 14,000 documents containing trade secrets. Levandowski then started his own self-driving truck company, called Otto, which he sold to Uber earlier this year. Levandowski is now working as the head of Uber’s self-driving department, although Uber and Levandowski claim their technology bears no resemblance to Waymo’s self-driving technology. Continue reading ›

|

Stock options exercised by railroad employees are a form of monetary compensation taxable to the employer and employee under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Wisconsin Central Ltd., et al. v. United States, No. 16‐3300 (7th Cir. 2017)).

In 1996, three Midwestern railroad subsidiaries of the Canadian National Railway Company began including stock options in their employees’ compensation plans. In its appeal from a district court ruling, the railway argued that income from the exercise of stock options that a railroad gives its employees is not a form of “money remuneration” to them and is therefore not taxable to the railway under the Act, which defines “compensation” as “any form of money remuneration paid to an individual for services rendered as an employee… .”

The Railroad Retirement Tax Act of 1937 is the railroad industry’s version of the Social Security Act; it imposes a payroll tax on both employer and employee to pay for pensions and other benefits.

The question before the Seventh Circuit was whether the tax should be levied on the value of stock options exercised by employees when the market price reaches a certain level. The Internal Revenue Service argued that it should, and in a 2-1 decision, the court agreed.

Writing for the majority, Judge Richard Posner stated: “Stock has so well‐defined a monetary value in our society that there is no significant economic difference between receiving a $1,000 salary bonus and a share or shares of stock having a market value of $1,000.” Continue reading ›

|

If a patent holder is allowed to control what happens to their patented products after the first sale, where would it end? Would they be able to take a cut from thrift shops? Garage sales?

Lexmark International, a technology company that makes printers and ink cartridges for those printers, has been selling its ink cartridges on the condition that they could not be refilled and resold after the initial sale. Despite that contingency, Impression Products, a small company based in West Virginia, was buying Lexmark’s ink cartridges (in the U.S. as well as abroad), refilling and refurbishing them, and reselling them at a reduced price.

Lexmark responded by suing Impression Products, claiming the company’s refusal to abide by the limitations Lexmark provided constituted trademark infringement. The case went before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is located in Washington. That court supported both of Lexmark’s claims concerning the resale of patented items that were initially purchased both in America, as well as those bought in other countries.

The appeals court agreed that, in most cases, anyone who bought a patented product was free to use it however they saw fit once they had paid for it, but that the conditions Lexmark had placed upon the sale of its ink cartridges was valid. Continue reading ›

|

As our economy continues to expand all over the country and the globe, it forces us to reconsider some of the ways in which we do business.

For example, when companies started including non-compete agreements in their contracts with their employees, the federal and state governments allowed it – as long as the non-compete agreements met certain requirements. Chief among those requirements was a time limit and a geographical limit. Ideally, non-compete agreements should protect the legitimate business interests of the company (by making sure employees don’t go to a direct competitor with trade secrets), without severely restricting further employment opportunities for the worker.

But as companies continue to grow and expand into national and international markets, their competitors can reasonably be considered to be operating just about everywhere. That’s the case Horizon Health Corp. is making in its lawsuit against Acadia Healthcare Co. Inc. and the individual Acadia employees who were allegedly bound by a non-compete agreement when they were working for Horizon.

The contract prohibited the employees from going to work for another “psychiatric management company,” for one year after termination of their employment with Horizon, but there was no geographic limit to the non-compete agreement. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address office.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW
Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, DiTommaso Lubin, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design