Firm: All
Practice Industry: Corporate & Business, Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals, Insurance
Region: All
Country/ State: All
Tag: All

On May 16, 2022, the Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion that serves as a cautionary tale for health care providers hoping to bill patients at chargemaster rates. The court’s decision in French v. Centura Health turned on the meaning of the phrase “all charges of the Hospital,” as set forth in the hospital service agreement (HSA) signed by Ms. French. Centura argued that the phrase “unambiguously refers to a hospital’s chargemaster rates.” Ms ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2015

A wave of settlements with municipal underwriting firms under the SEC’s Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative has brought renewed attention to continuing disclosure obligations in municipal offerings. But, it also raises questions about the initiative’s purportedly favorable settlement terms. On July 18, 2015, the SEC announced settlements with 36 municipal underwriters for willfully violating Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act ...

Dykema | June 2022

Hidden among its flurry of end-of-term blockbusters, on June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited opinion inRuan v. United States. InRuan,the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whatmens reaa physician must possess to be guilty of illegally distributing controlled substances through the use of allegedly improper prescriptions ...

Buchalter | June 2023

June 5, 2023 By: Joshua Robbins and Stephanie Shea While we wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of the Chevron doctrine governing courts’ deference to agencies’ interpretations of law, its recent decision in another case has flown under the radar. In Calcutt, III v. FDIC, 598 U.S ...

In an opinion issued last week, Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court significantly curtailed the ability of defendants to assert the statute of limitations as a defense to a securities fraud claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The decision makes it less likely that courts will dismiss, on statute of limitations grounds, cases filed within five years of the alleged fraud ...

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that a contract that required arbitration of "any dispute" constituted an agreement to class-wide arbitration. The Court’s narrow ruling turns on the parties’ express agreement to allow the arbitrator to decide whether their contract, which contained an arbitration provision but did not mention class proceedings, authorized class arbitration ...

[!<CDATA[ This term the Supreme Court is set to resolve a circuit split over the extent of a federal district court’s power to order a person “who resides in or is found” in its district “to give testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1782(a) ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2012

On Monday, June 11, 2012, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Amgen Inc., 660 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2011) to clarify the standards for certifying a class in a securities fraud suit under the fraud-on-the-market theory.  The Court’s decision to revisit class certification in securities fraud suits only a year after deciding Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S ...

Waller | January 2022

Today, the Supreme Court issued decisions in the COVID mandate cases that have had employers across the country on the edge of their seats. In aper curiam6-3 decision, the Court stayed the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard that required all employers with 100 or more employees to require COVID vaccination or weekly testing ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | July 2023

A month after nixing the “objectively reasonable interpretation” (Safeco) defense under the False Claims Act, the Supreme Court has vacated and remanded two other cases for further consideration of the defendant’s subjective state of mind when it filed payment claims with the government. The Fourth Circuit in Sheldon and the Eleventh Circuit in Olhausen will provide the first tests of the High Court’s newly minted FCA intent standard ...

The Supreme Court in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara held that plan terms cannot be reformed under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA based on a misleading summary plan description (SPD). Despite this narrow ruling, six justices further stated that reformation may be an appropriate equitable remedy under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. Background In 1998, CIGNA replaced its defined benefit plan with a cash balance plan ...

    Supreme Court Ruling Sets the Foundation for GST on Secondment of Employees     AUTHOR: Reena Asthana Khair Senior Partner and Head International Trade & Indirect Taxation Kochhar & Co. EMAIL: [email protected]   Japanese Multinational companies often share their talent pool across borders and jurisdictions by secondment of Japanese nationals ...

In a decision that will likely have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry (and possibly broader implications for patent, antitrust, and high technology), the Supreme Court yesterday refused to exempt so-called reverse payment (or "pay for delay") patent settlements from antitrust scrutiny. Prior to yesterday’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ___ (2013), most of the circuit courts to have considered the issue (i.e ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2011

In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. __ (2011), a securities class fraud action, the Supreme Court held that class certification had been improperly denied by the Fifth Circuit based on the absence of “loss causation.” The Court’s holding rejected Fifth Circuit case law dating back to 2007, which had required securities fraud plaintiffs to prove loss causation in order to obtain certification of a class ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | June 2024

In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court rejected efforts to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, overturning an earlier decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that the physicians and medical associations who brought the case did not have the right to challenge the FDA's regulation of the drug. To have standing, plaintiffs must show they have a “personal stake” in the case ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | March 2011

In a unanimous opinion issued this week, Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. __ (2011), the Supreme Court declined to adopt a proposed bright-line rule for materiality and reaffirmed the Basic “total mix” test. Specifically, the Court rejected Matrixx’s argument that adverse incident reports are never material unless they are statistically significant - overturning several lower court decisions to the contrary, including one written by then-Judge Alito ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2018

On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court, in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., held that a state can now require companies not physically present in that state to collect tax on internet sales made to its residents. The explosive growth of e-commerce combined with the states’ eroding tax base convinced the Supreme Court to turn back a half century of jurisprudence ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | December 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many business owners seeking business interruption and extra expense coverage for lost income sustained as a result of mandatory closures of their businesses.  At the core of such claims is the issue of whether businesses can obtain coverage for business interruption in the absence of direct physical loss to their business premises from COVID-19.  Consistent with national trends, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Neuro-Communication Servs., Inc. v ...

Lavery Lawyers | April 2024

On April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, marking the end of an almost 15 year-long debate on the freedom of association of managers and their exclusion under the Labour Code ...

Lavery Lawyers | March 2014

On March 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Réjean Hinse leave to appeal a decision involving an action in damages he brought against the federal authorities, represented by the Attorney General of Canada. In 1964, Mr. Hinse was wrongly convicted of taking part in an armed robbery and ordered to serve fifteen (15) years in prison. He was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997, thirty-three (33) years later. After he was acquitted, Mr ...

Hanson Bridgett LLP | June 2017

Last month, the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which narrowed the definition of where a corporate defendant "resides" for the purpose of suing it for patent infringement. In doing so, it overturned the 1994 holding of the Federal Circuit of what constitutes proper venue in patent infringement cases. Federal law allows a Plaintiff to bring a patent infringement suit against a defendant in any district where one of two conditions are met ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2010

In an opinion issued last week, Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 559 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that foreign plaintiffs cannot use the U.S. Securities laws to sue foreign issuers based on foreign stock purchases: a ruling that sounds the death knell for these so-called “foreign cubed” cases. Rejecting decades of lower-court case law on the extraterritorial reach of the U.S ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | February 2013

The United States Supreme Court yesterday significantly limited the federal government’s ability to bring an action for civil penalties more than five years after the alleged misconduct occurred. In Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Court held that the five-year limitations period governing most enforcement actions begins to run when the underlying violation occurred – not when the government discovered the violation ...

Plaintiffs frequently bring class action claims for alleged statutory violations for which Congress has provided private rights of action and statutory damages. In many of these instances, plaintiffs do not allege any specific, tangible harm (such as monetary loss), but claim that the violation of these so-called “statutory rights” by itself constitutes injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy standing requirements. This week, the Supreme Court held in Spokeo v ...

dots