One of the things a good chief financial officer does is keep the CEO from saying anything stupid.
That might mean shushing a boss who is about to give away too much insight on an upcoming quarter or, as happened with Cigna, coaching the CEO to please stop using entirely reasonable terms to discuss why it should merge, words like "dominant" and "market share."
These are "sensitive" words to say out loud once federal regulators start looking at any deal, as they have with Cigna's agreement to be acquired by Anthem Inc.
Sure enough, that conversation came up in a lawsuit the Department of Justice brought in late July to block the pending deal. It was one of two suits filed the same day to prevent the "big five" health insurers from completing deals that would shrink the group to the big three.
Aetna's proposed purchase of Humana seems to have some life, but neither deal can be certain to close. That means the company with the dominant market share, getting all the benefits of being a lot bigger than rivals that the Cigna boss so clearly understood, is going to remain Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group.
The federal lawsuits described just how heated up the deal-making got that led to these mergers. The leaders of the companies suspected in early 2014 that there might be only one more big deal left that they could slide past the Justice Department. But what kicked off what the DOJ called "a bidding frenzy" was news last year that Kentucky-based Humana was exploring a sale.
In a two-month period, Anthem made several bids for Cigna, as described in the suit, while Cigna made two bids for Humana, UnitedHealth made bids for both Aetna and Cigna and, finally, Aetna made a bid for Humana. That last one is the first deal that actually came to fruition, a $37 billion merger agreement that got announced in July of last year. A few weeks later, Cigna agreed to a deal with Anthem valued at $54 billion.
While Aetna and Humana reached an agreement quickly, one of the things that stands out in the securities filings on the deal is the back-and-forth in negotiations over what got described as a "regulatory termination fee."