Company: ELV
Filing Date: 2025-10-21
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001156039-25-000136
Chunk: 38

Company: Elevance Health, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-10-21
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 38
---
 and the Blue plans have conspired to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules that limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan, restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard® and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers.

-26-

The BCBSA and Blue plans approved a settlement agreement and release with the subscriber plaintiffs (the “Subscriber Settlement Agreement”), which received final approval by the Court in September 2022. The Subscriber Settlement Agreement and the defendants' payment and non-monetary obligations under the Subscriber Settlement Agreement became effective in June 2024, with the request for second Blue plan bid provisions effective in September 2024. A number of follow-on cases involving entities that opted out of the Subscriber Settlement Agreement have been filed. Those actions are: Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-01209-AMM (N.D. Ala.) (“Alaska Air”); JetBlue Airways Corp., et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00558-GMB (N.D. Ala.) (“Jet Blue”); Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., No. 2:22-cv-00265-RDP (N.D. Ala.) (dismissed without prejudice in June 2023); Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01256-SGC (N.D. Ala.); Hoover, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., No 1:21-cv-23448 (S.D. Fla.).; and VHS Liquidating Trust v. Blue Cross of California, et al., No. RG21106600 (Cal. Super.) (“VHS”). In February 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on a statute of limitations defense in Alaska Air and Jet Blue. In September 2023, the California court presiding over the VHS case upheld its prior order granting in part defendants’ motion to strike based on the statute of limitations. On February 14, 2025, the VHS plaintiffs amended their complaint to add an additional plaintiff, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. We intend to continue to