Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What television show influenced Chad Jarboe's decision to pursue a career in the legal field? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

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

Healthcare Transactions: Year in Review 2018Last year, CVS Health Corp. (NYSE: CVS) announced it would purchase health insurer Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) for $67.5 billion, a transaction that would be one of the biggest healthcare mergers in the past decade. The transaction raises an intriguing question: is this the beginning of a transformational shift in healthcare?

Recently, members of our healthcare group authored the Healthcare Transactions: Year in Review outlining 2017 M&A activity and drivers in the following hot healthcare sectors:

• Managed Care
• Hospitals
• Post-Acute Care—Home Health & Hospice
• Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs)
• Healthcare Information Technology (HIT)
• Behavioral Health
• Physician Practice Management

Read now

Court Vacates SEC Resource Extraction Rules

Publications

July 8, 2013

On July 2, 2013, U.S. District Judge John Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion that vacated SEC Rule 13q-1, which would have required oil and gas companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments in connection with the commercial development of oil, natural gas and minerals. The case was brought by the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Court based its ruling on findings that the SEC misread the statute to require public disclosure of the reports, and the SEC's decision to deny any exemption, given the limited explanation provided, was arbitrary and capricious.

It is not yet known whether the SEC will appeal the ruling or whether it will conduct new rulemaking which takes into account the Court's concerns. Under either scenario, the rule's deadline of reporting payments starting October 1, 2013 is expected to be delayed. However, since a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to conduct rulemaking on this issue, oil and gas companies should expect the SEC to continue to implement rulemaking in this area pursuant to its statutory directive.

It also remains to be seen how this will affect the conflict minerals rule which also originated out of the Dodd-Frank Act and for which a court challenge is before a different judge in the same U.S. District Court. Oral arguments in that case were held on July 1, 2013. According to news reports, the judge in that case suggested that federal courts should consider deferring to Congress on the matter, but also questioned whether the SEC properly used its powers to minimize any negative impacts when drafting the rule. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the conflicts minerals rule, and the rapidly approaching May 31, 2014 deadline for filing reports required under those rules, issuers should continue their efforts to gather the necessary information to complete the currently required reports while monitoring the ongoing legal proceedings regarding the rule.

If you have any questions regarding the issues addressed in this Corporate and Securities Law Alert, please contact either of the authors.


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.