Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


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 >

Court Vacates SEC Resource Extraction Rules


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


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.