Ford Motor Company V. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Michigan Mutual Insurance Company Et Al

The lawsuit filed by Ford Motor Company against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBS MI) and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Ford is seeking treble damages and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. The court has personal jurisdiction over both defendants due to their substantial presence and business transactions within the state of Michigan. The lawsuit claims that BCBS MI and BCBSA conspired with other BCBS Licensees in a nationwide conspiracy that resulted in the restraint of trade and commerce within Michigan, causing harm to Ford. The defendants allegedly divided geographic territories and allocated customers, creating Exclusive Service Areas (ESAs) in which each individual BCBS Licensee was the exclusive provider of certain insurance products and services. This reduced competition between BCBS Licensees and resulted in higher premiums and fees for customers like Ford. The License Agreements between BCBS Licensees establish two key restrictions on their ability to generate revenue from non-Blue Brand business within their designated geographic areas and outside of their exclusive areas. These restrictions limit the ability of each BCBS Licensee to develop non-Blue Brands that could and would compete within their designated areas and outside of them. The National Best Efforts Rule further discourages and disincentivizes each BCBS Licensee from developing substantial non-Blue Brand business outside of its ESA. These restrictions constitute agreements between competitors to divide and allocate geographic markets, and therefore are per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The BCBS Licensees have a share of at least 50 percent of the National Account market, and their collective nationwide economic power has unreasonably restrained competition in this market. Ford is a National Account, and the BCBS Licensees have unlawfully allocated customers and markets, restricted output, and eliminated the ability of Defendants to compete against each other for the business of National Accounts.

Full Screen

United States of America v. Robert Hunter Biden

Summary: Hunter Biden is currently embroiled in a lawsuit, accused of purchasing a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018 while allegedly using illegal substances. Despite denying drug use on the necessary paperwork, if found guilty, he could face a maximum of 25 years in prison along with substantial fines. Biden's defense team contends that the charges are politically driven, asserting that Biden's temporary possession of an unloaded firearm did not constitute a public safety risk. They intend to contest the charges, leveraging an agreement with the prosecution, recent federal court decisions, and potential Second Amendment defenses. This case could potentially ignite wider discussions about Second Amendment rights, especially as the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on a related issue concerning gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Opinions are divided among political and legislative figures, with some speculating that advocates of the Second Amendment might oppose the law that prohibits gun ownership for drug users.