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

Britt Latham Co-authors Article on Future of Disclosure-Only Settlements in M&A Class Actions

The New York Law Journal

Publications

May 24, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Britt Latham co-authored an article for The New York Law Journal discussing the future of "disclosure-only" settlements in M&A class actions following the Delaware Court of Chancery's rejection of several such settlements in 2015. Britt co-authored the article with James P. Smith III, a partner and chair of the securities litigation practice at Winston & Strawn.

As discussed in the article, the question going forward is whether these developments in Delaware will divert to other states the routine rush of litigation that typically follows a public company merger announcement. "Disclosure-only settlements have become 'the most common method for quickly resolving stockholder lawsuits that are filed routinely in response to the announcement of virtually every transaction involving the acquisition of a public corporation,'" the authors explain, citing the opinion in Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. These disclosure settlements are sometimes referred to as a "deal tax" – an inevitable annuity paid to plaintiffs' lawyers – that has simply become part of the "cost of doing business" in getting a public deal to closing. These settlements also provide "deal insurance," since settling on the basis of additional pre-vote proxy disclosures (1) provides deal certainty by avoiding the risk of an injunction of the shareholder vote on the proposed merger and (2) eliminates the small risk of future post-closing damages litigation. Thus, they have some benefit for both plaintiffs and defendants. Delaware has begun rejecting these settlements, and because it is the country's leading forum for merger objection litigation, companies should watch closely as other states may follow Delaware's precedent.

The full article, "The Future of Disclosure-Only Settlements," was published by The New York Law Journal on May 23, 2016, and is available online or the PDF below.

Download Document - The Future of Disclosure-Only Settlements (May 23, 2016)

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.