The question of “causality” – whether the offence of a party leads to liability for the failure of a concluding condition. The Tribunal found that Delaware had adopted the framework set out in the treaty declaration (second) as a guide to the analysis of the causation issue. In the context of the restoration, a party may be held liable for damages for breaching its obligations under a merger agreement if the breach “largely” contributed to the failure of a contracting condition. In order to demonstrate that the breach of their commitments contributed significantly to the non-satisfaction of a closing condition, it is not necessary to show that the condition would have been imposed, “but for” the lack of cooperation; but that he made the satisfaction of the condition “less likely.” “But,” the court wrote, citing restatement, “if it can be proven that the condition would not have been met despite the lack of cooperation, [then] the failure of the benefit did not contribute significantly… [Non-satisfaction of the condition], the rule does not apply,” and the hurtful part would not be held responsible for the damage. “The burden of showing it is unfairly served on the party.” Although the merger attack was the “contrary” to Cigna`s commitments outlined in the Covenant Efforts, Finally, the court did not require Cigna Anthem to pay damages.21 In assessing whether Cigna`s offences had a significant impact on the DOJ process and the resulting omission of the non-injunction condition, the court found that Cigna`s disguised communication campaign had not had a significant impact on the DOJ. or the courts and had only one purpose, to provide “strong evidence” of Cigna`s intent, while Anthem proved that the rest of Cigna`s offences contributed significantly to the failure of the omission requirement, notably by undermining Anthem`s arguments in local markets, Cigna successfully proved that it was “more likely than not” that the DOJ won a lawsuit to block the merger with arguments in domestic markets. , even though Cigna had fulfilled its contractual obligations.23 Cigna sued Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The appeal establishes that Cigna has legally terminated the merger treaty and that Anthem cannot extend the notice period. The complaint requires Anthem to pay the $1.85 billion self-termination fee in the merger treaty, as well as more than $13 billion in additional damages. Among these additional losses is the amount of the bonus that Cigna shareholders did not realize as a result of the failure of the merger process. This is necessary to enforce and protect Cigna`s rights and protect the interests of its shareholders.
The company strongly believes in the merits of its case and hopes that this matter will be resolved quickly. Cigna is disappointed with the outcome of this process. From the outset, Cigna felt that the merger of the two companies had the potential to expand choice, improve accessibility and quality, and further accelerate value-based sourcing. Anthem has assigned the management of the authorisation procedure of the Federal State and the Federal States as well as the process strategy in the context of the merger agreement. Cigna has fulfilled all contractual obligations and cooperated fully with Anthem throughout the authorization process. Throughout its submissions, the court found that “the main witnesses suffered from serious credibility problems.” 36 Thus, the court found that Cigna`s witnesses “gave less than credible testimony, 37 In addition, the court found that Cigna`s witnesses “concealed their efforts to undermine the merger and produce an alternative narrative in which Anthem was incompetent.38 On the other hand, it was found that “the desire to complete the transaction led it to statements of , predictions and statements that were sometimes questionable, at other times unsavory, and sometimes false. 39 For example, Anthem`s leaders expressed a positive view of cooperation between the parties, which was denied by the obtaining of the evidence.