Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Eli Richardson Comments on Supreme Court's Speedy Trial Ruling

Law360

Media Mentions

May 20, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Eli Richardson provided comment to Law360 for an article outlining the impact of the Betterman v. Montana decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not apply to the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings. As Eli points out in the article, 

Betterman represents a welcome resolution of a split among lower courts as to whether the Speedy Trial Clause applies to the timing of sentencings. In answering the question with a resounding 'no,' the court relied on straightforward and uncontroversial (albeit disputable) arguments. Thus, Betterman delivers no big surprise in its result or its reasoning. Perhaps its legacy will be its concurrences, which suggest that future complaints about delays in sentencing be brought as due process claims. This makes sense, as the Due Process Clause has the flexibility, which is simply lacking in the Speedy Trial Clause, to apply to sentencings.

The full article, "Attorneys React To High Court's Speedy Trial Ruling," was published by Law360 on May 19, 2016, and is available online.


In Case You Missed It:

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.