Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


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

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

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.