Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Federal Court Decides Hospital is Not a Consumer Reporting Agency

Publications

August 27, 2015

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Illinois' largest hospital system, Advocate Health Care, is not a "consumer reporting agency" for purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The case, Tierney v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., affirmed the judgment of the district court, granting the hospital's motion to dismiss.

The case arose from a data breach in which burglars stole four desktop computers from one of Advocate's administrative offices. The computers contained unencrypted private data relating to four million Advocate patients. Several patients filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Advocate violated the FCRA's requirement that a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") maintain reasonable procedures to ensure it does not furnish consumer reports to unauthorized third parties.

In affirming the district court's dismissal, the Seventh Circuit found that Advocate did not meet the FCRA's statutory definition of a CRA in multiple ways. Although Advocate regularly assembles patients' personal information, it does not do so "for monetary fees" as required by the FCRA. Neither was Advocate's assembly of consumer information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, also required for Advocate to be considered a CRA. The consumer information assembled by Advocate came solely from transactions or experiences between the patients and Advocate, and thereby was expressly excluded by statute from the definition of a "consumer report."

The court's decision in Tierney follows other decisions in data breach litigation that have rejected plaintiffs' attempts to push the envelope for CRA liability under the FCRA. That push is motivated by the generous remedial provisions of the FCRA, including the availability of statutory damages (without the need to prove actual damages) on a class-wide basis without a statutory cap. By recognizing commonsense limits to the FCRA's expansive definition of a CRA, Tierney provides helpful precedent for healthcare companies that find themselves in FCRA litigation.


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.