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 >

Eighth Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Statutory Damages Claim

Publications

August 9, 2013

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that a plaintiff who seeks statutory damages for only an "informational injury" is constitutionally prohibited from asserting his claim. The decision in Charvat v. Mutual First Federal Credit Union reversed the district court's prior dismissal of the lawsuit, which involved the statutory requirement (recently revoked by Congress) that ATM machines contain both on-screen and on-machine notice of a transaction fee.

The Eight Circuit's decision is important because it follows the interesting saga of First American Financial v. Edwards, a case that raised the same issue, which was briefed and argued in the U.S. Supreme Court during the October 2011 Term. The decision by the Court to grant review in First American, a case involving a statutory damages claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, generated intense speculation because of its potential effect on private litigation under a number of consumer financial protection statutes. That speculation reached a feverish pitch, at least in consumer financial litigation circles, when the Court postponed its decision until the last day of the Term. That morning, just before the Court rendered its decisions in the Affordable Care Act cases, the Court announced that it was dismissing First American because it had "improvidently granted review," a procedure the Court uses to punt cases when they are determined not to require constitutional interpretation or, as a practical matter, when the justices are unable to reach agreement on the outcome.

After First American, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court may yet be interested in deciding the limits of Congress' power to create private lawsuits for informational injuries in statues such as the RESPA and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Charvat is the most recent decision in what is likely to be an increased number of cases in which defendants seek to advance this argument under a variety of consumer financial statutes. As these cases reach the federal appellate courts, and as the potential grows for conflicts among circuit courts, we will know whether this standing argument actually has legs.

If you have any questions about the content of this alert, please contact one of the authors listed above or any of the FCRA team members.


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.