A Sweet Win for Hershey Medical Center s Proposed Merger: District Court Denies FTC s Attempt to Block Pennsylvania Hospital Merger
|
|
- Harvey Hodge
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 A Sweet Win for Hershey Medical Center s Proposed Merger: District Court Denies FTC s Attempt to Block Pennsylvania Hospital Merger CLIENT ALERT May 16, 2016 Barbara T. Sicalides sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com Megan Morley morleym@pepperlaw.com The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently denied the Federal Trade Commission s (FTC s) motion to enjoin preliminarily the merger of two central Pennsylvania hospital systems. 1 This ruling brings an end to the FTC s recent winning streak in blocking hospital mergers at the preliminary injunction stage. As a result, the court s opinion serves as a guide to health care providers that are analyzing potential mergers. THIS PUBLICATION MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY ADVERTISING The material in this publication was created as of the date set forth above and is based on laws, court decisions, administrative rulings and congressional materials that existed at that time, and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and the transmission and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Please send address corrections to phinfo@pepperlaw.com Pepper Hamilton LLP. All Rights Reserved.
2 The Proceedings In spring 2015, Penn State Hershey Medical Center (Hershey) and Pinnacle Health System entered a strategic affiliation agreement. Hershey is a 551-bed academic medical center, located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, that offers a wide array of tertiary and quaternary care services. It operates the region s only children s hospital and one of only three Level 1 trauma centers in Pennsylvania. Pinnacle, on the other hand, operates 646 licensed beds across three community hospitals two of which are located in Harrisburg and the other in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Pinnacle offers a limited number of higher-end services. The hospitals notified the FTC of the merger, and, after an investigation, the FTC issued an administrative complaint, alleging that the merger may substantially lessen competition. In addition, in March 2016, the FTC moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the hospitals from closing the proposed merger. After a period of expedited discovery, the district court conducted a five-day evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction motion and issued its ruling on May 9. The FTC sought a stay of the court s order denying its requested injunction, pending its appeal. The Decision In deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the district court was required to (1) determine the likelihood that the FTC will ultimately succeed on the merits and (2) balance the equities. The court concluded that the FTC failed in both respects. To succeed on the merits, the FTC had to prove that the merger may substantially lessen competition in a relevant product and geographic market. In this case, the parties agreed on the product market general acuity services sold to commercial insurers. However, they were at odds on the geographic market in which to examine the merger. The FTC argued that the geographic market should be limited to the four counties that comprised the Harrisburg metropolitan area. According to the FTC, the merged hospitals would have a 76 percent share of the four-county market. It contended that general acute services are inherently local in nature because people want to be hospitalized close to their homes and families. Accordingly, the FTC theorized that patients who live in Harrisburg overwhelmingly chose hospitals close to their homes, primarily Hershey and Pinnacle. The FTC also argued that the two main commercial insurers in the Harrisburg area recognized Harrisburg as a distinct area. The hospitals, on the other hand, contended that the FTC s geographic market definition was too narrow and ignored commercial realities.
3 The district court agreed with the hospitals, concluding that the FTC s definition of the relevant geographic market was too narrowly drawn. In so doing, the court examined the area from which the hospitals drew their patients and the alternative providers to which patients could turn if prices increased or quality suffered at the merging hospitals. Of particular importance to the court s analysis was the fact that 43.5 percent of Hershey s patients traveled to Hershey from outside the FTC s purported geographic area. In fact, more than half of Hershey s revenues originated outside of Harrisburg. In addition, thousands of Pinnacle s patients live outside the Harrisburg area. Accordingly, these facts contradicted the FTC s arguments that general acute services were local in nature and indicated that the FTC s geographic market did not account for where the hospitals drew their business. The court also noted that there are 19 hospitals within a 65-minute drive of Harrisburg. In fact, some of these hospitals are closer to patients who currently use Hershey. Further, given the rural nature of central Pennsylvania, residents often drive significant distances for specific goods and services. Thus, these other 19 hospitals provide realistic alternatives should prices rise or quality suffer as a result of the merger. Finally, the court explained that the merging hospitals took steps to prevent post-merger price increases with the two largest commercial insurers in central Pennsylvania, accounting for 75 to 80 percent of the commercial patients. Specifically, the hospitals entered a five-year contract with one payer and a 10-year contract with the other payer that maintain the existing rate structures and price differentials between the hospitals. With these agreements in place, the court opined that the FTC was essentially asking it to prevent a merger based on what might happen to prices five years in the future. The court was not persuaded by the FTC s argument and, instead, found the agreements entered into between the hospitals and insurers compelling. As a result, because the court determined that the FTC failed to define a proper relevant geographic market, it denied the FTC s request for injunctive relief as the FTC could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Although the court already determined that an injunction should not be granted, it proceeded to examine the equitable considerations and focused on three factors that pointed to denial of the injunction. First, the court noted that the hospitals presented a compelling efficiencies argument in favor of the merger that the merger would alleviate some of Hershey s capacity constraints. Hershey s capacity averaged above the optimal occupancy rate for hospitals. Without the merger, Hershey intends to build a $277 million
4 bed tower. However, with the merger, Pinnacle has sufficient capacity to allow Hershey to transfer lower acuity patients to Pinnacle. Hershey can then focus on treating more high-acuity patients, who benefit from Hershey s greater offering of complex services. In this way, the merger will prevent Hershey from expending capital to build the tower and allow patients and services to be properly allocated between the providers. Second, the court explained that the repositioning of competitor providers will constrain the merged hospitals ability to increase prices. Numerous nearby hospitals recently were acquired or partnered with larger hospitals or health care systems. In this way, these competitor hospitals are better situated to constrain the merged entity. Third, the court discussed the growing use of risk-based contracting in the health care industry. 2 To perform best under these risk contracts, hospitals must offer a total continuum of care. On this subject, the court found persuasive the testimony of Hershey s CEO, who explained that it was advantageous to spread the costs of risk contracting over a larger health care system. Additionally, risk-based contracting benefits the community by allowing Hershey to continue to use its revenues to fund the College of Medicine and bring high-quality medical students and teachers to the area. Overall, the court determined that the equities weighed in favor of the merger, concluding that Hershey and Pinnacle patients would benefit from a combined entity. In so doing, the court also recognized the growing need for all those involved to adapt to an evolving landscape of healthcare. Notably, the court was not afraid to rebuke the FTC for its position. It stated: Our determination reflects the healthcare world as it is, and not as the FTC wishes it to be. We find it no small irony that the same federal government under which the FTC operates has created a climate that virtually compels institutions to seeks alliances such as the Hospitals intended here.... It is better for the people they treat that such hospitals unite and survive rather than remain divided and wither. Although the district court s decision rested on the geographic market definition, the above quote and the court s careful review of the developing health care marketplace (more affiliations, risk-based contracting and the importance of academic medical centers) may mark a turning point away from purely formulaic reliance on the FTC s preferred approach and the testimony of self-interested payers. 3
5 The Appeal Typically, the court s denial of the FTC s requested preliminary injunction would mean that the providers could complete their merger, but the FTC filed a motion to enjoin the transaction closing pending the agency s planned appeal of the district court s decision. The district court promptly granted a two-week extension of the original temporary restraining order (TRO), and, on the same date, the FTC filed its appeal. The FTC s principal criticism of the court s injunction decision was that the court s geographic market definition was based, in part, on the location of 43.5 percent of Hershey patients who reside outside the four-county Harrisburg area. Specifically, the FTC claims that taking into account the fact that almost half of Hershey s patients travel from outside the narrower geographic market is akin to applying the Elzinga-Hogarty test. 4 According to the FTC, the district court s analysis does not focus on the dynamics of payer negotiations and the theory that the proposed transaction could increase the merging hospitals bargaining leverage. The agency s arguments are based on its view that payers are the direct customers of the providers, not the patients, and that rates will increase if providers gain too much bargaining leverage. 5 Additionally, the FTC argues that the district court erred by relying on the parties five- and 10-year agreements with the largest commercial insurers in the area. In their brief related to the extension of the TRO, the hospitals point out that the district court s market definition decision is subject to deference, given its highly fact-dependent nature. They argue that consideration of the many patients traveling into the FTC s market and the fact that patient behavior is intimately linked to payers bargaining positions are important to the definition of the relevant market. The hospitals will make more detailed arguments in opposition to the FTC s appeal. The appeal will be an interesting one to watch, not only because the FTC has not faced a hospital merger loss in more than 10 years, but also because the circumstances here undermine some of the FTC s strongest recent arguments. For example, the proportion of Hershey patients from outside the FTC s alleged market is substantial 43.5 percent. To ignore or minimize the health care purchasing patterns of such a large volume of patients and to instead rely on payer testimony that the transaction would harm its bargaining position could make the FTC s typical arguments more difficult to accept in the instant case. In addition, the appellate court might view the long-term agreements reducing or delaying the hospitals ability to increase rates with payers holding 75 to 80 percent of commercial patients for at least five years as mitigating any increased bargaining power of the parties.
6 Some other interesting questions remain. What role, if any, will Hershey s need to increase its capacity and planned affiliations among area facilities, leading to more sophisticated less local systems, play in the court s assessment of the benefits of the proposed transaction? Given the fact-sensitive nature of the trial court s analysis, will the appellate court take head-on the market definition methodology and apply the FTC s preferred approach? What s Next Because of the particular facts at issue here, the Hershey case does not necessarily reflect a tectonic shift in health care merger analysis. Although the final fate of the Hershey/Pinnacle transaction is not yet certain, this opinion can serve as a guide for health care providers contemplating a merger in several ways: First, it remains critically important to develop strong evidence and arguments regarding the geographic market. Hospitals should focus on the actual commercial realities examine where patients are located and all possible alternative facilities. Second, if the deal may be of interest to a government agency, then the entities should consider reaching out to their payers/customers, testing their reactions to the proposed transaction, and, if needed, entering agreements with large payers that reduce the likelihood of rate increases as a result of the proposed transactions. Third, as the court noted, the trend among lower courts is to recognize efficiencies, and the court provided some clear examples of such beneficial provider efficiencies: increasing available capacity in a cost-effective manner capital avoidance resulting from the transaction allowing merging parties to more efficiently engage in risk-based contracting. Fourth, parties should not ignore the positive community benefits derived from the combined entity, including the ability to continue to use revenues to preserve an academic medical institution.
7 Endnotes 1. Fed. Trade Comm n v. Penn State Hershey Med. Ctr., No. 1:15-cv-2362 (M.D. Pa. May 9, 2016), available at opinions/15v2362.pdf. 2. The government intends to shift 50 to 80 percent of payments into risk-based contracts in the next two years. 3. Payer witnesses regularly testify against hospital combinations and provide support for the FTC s narrow geographic market definitions. 4. The Elzinga-Hogarty test focuses on patient inflow and outflow data to define the relevant geographic market. That test was abandoned by the FTC in In re Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp., No (FTC Aug. 2007), available at Since Evanston, the FTC s strategy has shifted to proving competitive harm by showing that proposed acquisitions would prevent health insurance companies from excluding the hospitals at issue from their provider networks, which, in turn, increases the merging parties bargaining leverage in contract negotiations. The FTC then argues, with the support of the payers, that the increased provider leverage will necessarily result in rate increases. 5. The FTC explains that health care markets are unlike others because there are four participants: insured patients; their employers, who select the policies offered; providers; and insurance companies. According to the agency, because insurers pay the bulk of the health care costs of their policy holders and negotiate the prices of services, they are the direct customers. Berwyn Boston Detroit Harrisburg Los Angeles New York Orange County Philadelphia Pittsburgh Princeton Silicon Valley Washington Wilmington pepper.law
RECENT CASES OFFER INCREASED PROSPECTS FOR MERGERS BY COMPETING HOSPITALS
RECENT CASES OFFER INCREASED PROSPECTS FOR MERGERS BY COMPETING HOSPITALS July 19, 2016 Recent setbacks experienced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in hospital merger challenges may embolden hospitals
More informationNew York Employers Take Note: Federal Court Injunction Blocking the Federal Overtime Regulations Means Little in New York
New York Employers Take Note: Federal Court Injunction Blocking the Federal Overtime Regulations Means Little in New York CLIENT ALERT November 30, 2016 Richard J. Reibstein reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com Jessica
More informationRelated-Party Provisions Prevent Deduction by S Corp Shareholders
Related-Party Provisions Prevent Deduction by S Corp Shareholders Annette M. Ahlers ahlersa@pepperlaw.com Many routine transactions occur between related parties, including the payment or accrual of interest
More informationShedding Light on the AAA s Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option
Shedding Light on the AAA s Streamlined Three-Arbitrator Panel Option July 2018 Michael P. Subak subakm@pepperlaw.com R. Zachary Torres-Fowler torresr@pepperlaw.com This article was published in the July
More informationFocus on New Tax Law: Section 199A Pass-Through Deduction and Restrictions on Interest Deductions
Focus on New Tax Law: Section 199A Pass-Through Deduction and Restrictions on Interest Deductions TAX UPDATE Volume 2018, Issue 2 Annette M. Ahlers ahlersa@pepperlaw.com The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017
More informationLessons Unlearned: Franchise and Independent Contractor Agreements Can Be Kiss of Death
Lessons Unlearned: Franchise and Independent Contractor Agreements Can Be Kiss of Death CLIENT ALERT September 22, 2016 Richard J. Reibstein reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com A. Christopher Young youngac@pepperlaw.com
More informationMisclassification Claims Threaten Gig Economy Business
Misclassification Claims Threaten Gig Economy Business PEPPER@WORK November 6, 2017 Tracey E Diamond diamondt@pepperlaw.com Susan K. Lessack lessacks@pepperlaw.com Jessica X.Y. Rothenberg rothenbergj@pepperlaw.com
More informationCFPB Issues Long-Awaited Short-Term Lending Final Rule
CFPB Issues Long-Awaited Short-Term Lending Final Rule CLIENT ALERT October 9, 2017 Richard P. Eckman eckmanr@pepperlaw.com THE REAL IMPACT ON THE HIGH-COST LOAN INDUSTRY IS RESTRICTING THE ABILITY TO
More informationThe IRS s Stricter(?) Stance on Regulated Investment Company Investments in Commodities
The IRS s Stricter(?) Stance on Regulated Investment Company Investments in Commodities TAX UPDATE Volume 2017, Issue 1 Morgan Klinzing klinzingm@pepperlaw.com W. Roderick Gagné gagner@pepperlaw.com WHILE
More informationU.S. District Court Upholds CLO Risk Retention Rule
U.S. District Court Upholds CLO Risk Retention Rule FINANCIAL SERVICES January 12, 2017 Todd R. Kornfeld kornfeldt@pepperlaw.com John P. Falco falcoj@pepperlaw.com INVESTMENT MANAGERS THAT WISH TO MANAGE
More informationJudge Holds UberBLACK Drivers Are Independent Contractors, Not Employees
Judge Holds UberBLACK Drivers Are Independent Contractors, Not Employees PEPPER@WORK April 17, 2018 Susan K. Lessack lessacks@pepperlaw.com On April 11, Judge Michael Baylson of the U.S. District Court
More informationTax Treatment of Employee Hardship and Disaster Relief
Tax Treatment of Employee Hardship and Disaster Relief TAX UPDATE Volume 2017, Issue 6 Lisa B. Petkun petkunl@pepperlaw.com Recent hurricanes and fires have caused employers to focus on how to help employees
More informationPrivate Equity Investments in Health Care Practices
Private Equity Investments in Health Care Practices August 28, 2017 Yale H. Bohn bohny@pepperlaw.com PRIVATE EQUITY FUNDS ARE GENERALLY PROHIBITED FROM OWNING ENTITIES THAT EMPLOY LICENSED PROFESSIONALS
More informationNew Revenue Recognition Standards Reinforce Need for Precise Accounting Definitions in Transaction Documents
New Revenue Recognition Standards Reinforce Need for Precise Accounting Definitions in Transaction Documents June 22, 2017 Scott R. Jones jonessr@pepperlaw.com Joseph F. Kadlec kadlecj@pepperlaw.com ALL
More informationMCA Participations and Security Laws: Recognizing and Managing a Looming Threat
MCA Participations and Security Laws: Recognizing and Managing a Looming Threat ALERT December 10, 2018 Gregory J. Nowak nowakg@pepperlaw.com Mark T. Dabertin dabertinm@pepperlaw.com Due to the high volume
More informationCharitable Contributions: Acknowledgements, Appraisals and the IRS s Strict Rules
Charitable Contributions: Acknowledgements, Appraisals and the IRS s Strict Rules W. Roderick Gagné gagner@pepperlaw.com Lisa B. Petkun petkunl@pepperlaw.com UPON AUDIT, IF A TAXPAYER DOES NOT HAVE A CONTEMPORANEOUS
More informationMajor Changes Looming for HMDA Reporting
Major Changes Looming for HMDA Reporting CLIENT ALERT September 25, 2017 Scott D. Samlin samlins@pepperlaw.com Mark T. Dabertin dabertinm@pepperlaw.com In this article, we review the requirements of the
More informationSEC Releases New Form ADV To Be Used for Filings After October 1, 2017
SEC Releases New Form ADV To Be Used for Filings After October 1, 2017 CLIENT ALERT September 7, 2017 Gregory J. Nowak nowakg@pepperlaw.com MANY OF THE CHANGES TO FORM ADV ARE HOUSEKEEPING CHANGES AND
More informationInvestment ManagementAlert
February 22, 2013 Berwyn Boston Detroit Harrisburg Los Angeles New York Orange County Philadelphia Pittsburgh Princeton Washington, D.C. Wilmington Form PF Filing Deadlines Loom for Midsized Hedge and
More informationTHE LONG AND WINDING ROAD OF ARBITRATION IN INDIA: Examining 20 Years of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996
THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD OF ARBITRATION IN INDIA: Examining 20 Years of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 January 29, 2016 James D. Rosener rosenerj@pepperlaw.com Sanam Tripathi* tripathis@pepperlaw.com
More informationRobert Patel v. Meridian Health Systems Inc
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-4-2013 Robert Patel v. Meridian Health Systems Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-3020
More informationStatements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care. Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission
Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care Issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission August 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................ 1
More informationKAO LAW ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KAO LAW ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM CORNELL ARCHBOLD, JR* JOSEPH PATRICK O'BRIEN** JOHN YANOSHAK CHRISTOPHER H. PEIFER*** OF COUNSEL FRED KREPPEL GLEN MADERE EDWARD KASSAB 1927-2010 *ALSO MEMBER
More informationCOMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF HOSPITAL MERGERS
1 COMPETITIVE EFFECTS OF HOSPITAL MERGERS David J. Balan (FTC) Netherlands ACM Conference November 16, 2016 The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
More informationCPI Antitrust Chronicle April 2015 (2)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle April 2015 (2) FTC v. St. Luke s: Is the Efficiencies Defense Dead or Alive? Deirdre A. McEvoy & Kathrina Szymborski Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler www.competitionpolicyinternational.com
More informationDeal Dynamics Under Antitrust Fire: Contrasting AT&T/T-Mobile and Express Scripts/Medco
Deal Dynamics Under Antitrust Fire: Contrasting AT&T/T-Mobile and Express Scripts/Medco January 29, 2013 2013 Dechert LLP Topics Antitrust and politics of Express Scripts/Medco Contrasting AT&T/T-Mobile
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EDUARD SHAMIS, ) Case No.: BC662341 ) Plaintiffs, ) Assigned for All Purposes to ) The Hon. Maren E. Nelson, Dept. 17 v. ) ) NOTICE
More informationCircuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C-02-000895 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1100 September Term, 2017 ALLAN M. PICKETT, et al. v. FREDERICK CITY MARYLAND, et
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
United States of America v. Stinson Doc. 98 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1534-Orl-22TBS JASON P. STINSON,
More informationAntitrust Update. Washington State Society of Health Care Attorneys November 3, Douglas Ross Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
Antitrust Update Washington State Society of Health Care Attorneys November 3, 2012 Douglas Ross Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP douglasross@dwt.com (206) 757-8135 Overview Provider consolidation Exclusionary
More informationInsurance Antitrust. DOJ and States Challenge Health Insurer Mergers. This is an advertisement. September By James M. Burns
DOJ and States Challenge Health Insurer Mergers Following more than a year of regulatory review, in late July 2016 the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and a number of states filed actions
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Grand Prix Harrisburg, LLC, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2037 C.D. 2011 : Argued: June 4, 2012 Dauphin County Board of : Assessment Appeals, Dauphin : County, Central
More informationProperty Tax and Sales Tax Issues for Not-For-Profit Hospitals and Healthcare Organizations The Illinois Experience Outlier or Harbinger
Property Tax and Sales Tax Issues for Not-For-Profit Hospitals and Healthcare Organizations The Illinois Experience Outlier or Harbinger Issues For Healthcare Organizations October 15-16, 2012 Presenter:
More informationTHOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES. Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0230 September Term, 2015 MARVIN A. VAN DEN HEUVEL, ET AL. v. THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired,
More informationA Practical Guide to U.S. Tax Compliance Issues for Hedge Fund of Funds
A Practical Guide to U.S. Tax Compliance Issues for Hedge Fund of Funds www.pepperlaw.com October 2008 This memorandum is intended to provide a quick reference guide to the key U.S. income tax issues that
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (BALTIMORE DIVISION) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (BALTIMORE DIVISION ARLENE HODGES, CAROLYN MILLER and GARY T. BROWN, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of the Bon Secours Plans,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007
PER CURIAM. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2007 CLYDE COY, Appellant, v. MANGO BAY PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS, INC., UNION TITLE CORPORATION, AMERICAN PIONEER
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Braden v. Sinar, 2007-Ohio-4527.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CYNTHIA BRADEN C. A. No. 23656 Appellant v. DR. DAVID SINAR, DDS., et
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 81 MDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 THOMAS MORGAN, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. 3D METAL WORKS, Appellant No. 81 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered December
More informationPay, Play, or Sue: A Review of the Ninth Circuit s Opinion in Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.
Pay, Play, or Sue: A Review of the Ninth Circuit s Opinion in Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco, et al. By Anne S. Kimbol, J.D., LL.M. Combine the election cycle, fears
More informationCircuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Cecil County Case No. 07-K-07-000161 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2115 September Term, 2017 DANIEL IAN FIELDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Leahy, Shaw Geter, Thieme,
More informationCLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS
CLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS Martin M. Ween, Esq. Partner Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CODY GADD Appellant No. 49 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of
More informationCase 3:17-cv JSC Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-00-jsc Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 DAVID C. SHONKA Acting General Counsel KATHERINE WORTHMAN, DC Bar No. 00 IOANA RUSU, DC Bar No. 000 Federal Trade Commission 00 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Mailstop
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 2178 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: October 6, 2014 John Hummel, Jr., : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 GARY DUNSWORTH AND CYNTHIA DUNSWORTH, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellees v. THE DESIGN STUDIO AT 301, INC., Appellant No. 2071 MDA
More informationDistrict court concludes that taxpayer s refund suit, relating to the carryback of a deduction for foreign taxes, was untimely
IRS Insights A closer look. In this issue: District court concludes that taxpayer s refund suit, relating to the carryback of a deduction for foreign taxes, was untimely... 1 IRS issues Chief Counsel Advice
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT -------------------------------------------------------X REEC
More informationFTC/DOJ ISSUE JOINT PROPOSED STATEMENT OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO ACOs
FTC/DOJ ISSUE JOINT PROPOSED STATEMENT OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO ACOs April 20, 2011 Boston Brussels Chicago Düsseldorf Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Theodore R. Robinson, : Petitioner : : v. : : State Employees' Retirement Board, : No. 1136 C.D. 2014 Respondent : Submitted: October 31, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SEVER
ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VINCENT R. ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-792
More informationWASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Appellee, MAHAFFEY, Appellant. [Cite as Washington Mut. Bank v. Mahaffey, 154 Ohio App.3d 44, 2003-Ohio-4422.
[Cite as Washington Mut. Bank v. Mahaffey, 154 Ohio App.3d 44, 2003-Ohio-4422.] WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, Appellee, v. MAHAFFEY, Appellant. [Cite as Washington Mut. Bank v. Mahaffey, 154 Ohio App.3d 44,
More information2016 PA Super 193 OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 29, Appellant, Dawn M. Cubano, appeals from the order entered on
2016 PA Super 193 DAWN M. CUBANO Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JONAS M. SHEEHAN, M.D., MOKSHA RANASINGHE, M.D., MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, A/K/A HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, A/K/A
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM ERIC WEBB Appellant No. 540 EDA 2016 Appeal from the PCRA Order
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 331 MDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 PITNEY ROAD PARTNERS, LLC T/D/B/A REDCAY COLLEGE CAMPUSES I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. HARRISBURG AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
More informationWhat Bazaarvoice Tells Us About Section 7 Litigation
What Bazaarvoice Tells Us About Section 7 Litigation Law360, New York (January 14, 2014, 9:33 PM ET) -- On Jan. 8, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice prevailed in its challenge to Bazaarvoice s consummated
More informationUber Hits a Speed Bump in California: Labor Commissioner Rules Driver is an Employee
Client Alert Corporate & Securities Corporate & Securities - Technology Employment June 24, 2015 Uber Hits a Speed Bump in California: Labor Commissioner Rules Driver is an Employee By Paula M. Weber and
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner Z Financial, LLC, appeals both the trial court s granting of equitable
FOURTH DIVISION April 30, 2009 No. 1-08-1445 In re THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND Ex Officio COUNTY COLLECTOR OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS, FOR JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SALE AGAINST REAL ESTATE RETURNED
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 SABIR A. RAHMAN. JACOB GEESING et al.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2217 September Term, 2015 SABIR A. RAHMAN v. JACOB GEESING et al. Nazarian, Beachley, Davis, Arrie W. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationAntitrust Rules for Provider Collaboration: How to Form and Operate a Network of Competing Providers
Antitrust Rules for Provider Collaboration: How to Form and Operate a Network of Competing Providers By Mitchell D. Raup, Shareholder, Polsinelli PC, Washington DC I. Introduction: A. Many forms of provider
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Atlantic City Electric Company, : Keystone-Conemaugh Projects, : Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, : Delaware Power and Light Company, : Metropolitan Edison
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,
More informationUnited States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals
Cite as: Size Appeal of Kadix Systems, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5016 (2008) United States Small Business Administration Office of Hearings and Appeals SIZE APPEAL OF: Kadix Systems, LLC Appellant SBA No. SIZ-5016
More informationCase 2:17-cv CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01502-CB Document 28 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION ) BUREAU, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W912DR-11-C-0023 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia, : Appellant : : No. 216 C.D. 2011 v. : : Argued: October 19, 2011 City of Philadelphia Tax Review : Board : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, CLC PENSION ASSISTANCE AND LITIGATION POLICY ADOPTED 2011
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, CLC PENSION ASSISTANCE AND LITIGATION POLICY ADOPTED 2011 I. General Policy Statement on Retirement: The retirement benefits earned by firefighters are
More informationDeveloping Effective Resolution Strategies and Plans for Systemically Important Insurers; Consultative Document 3 November 2015
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Tel. +1.860.240.2700 Fax: +1.860.240.2701 www.morganlewis.com Morgan Lewis Harold S. Horwich Partner +1.860.240.2722 harold.horwich@morganlewis.com
More informationSEC Issues Preliminary Denial Notices for Two Nontransparent Actively Managed ETF Applications
November 2014 Practice Group: Investment Management SEC Issues Preliminary Denial Notices for Two U.S. Investment Management Alert By Stacy L. Fuller, Mark D. Perlow, and Timothy A. Bekkers Summary In
More informationUnited States District Court
United States District Court Central District of California MARK HENNING, ROMAN ZARETSKI, AND CHRISTIAN STILLMARK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. ORIENT PAPER,
More informationCorporate and Securities Law Update
www.pepperlaw.com January 2008 SEC Amends Requirements for Smaller Reporting Companies On December 19, 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued final amendments to its disclosure requirements
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DATE/TIME: JUDGE: 1:30 p.m. 08/12/2011 HON. ALLEN SUMNER DEPT. NO.: CLERK: 42 M. GARCIA DANIEL E. FRANCIS, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO A.A. M.D., ) No. ) Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) HOSPITAL, INC., ) ) Respondent. ) Filed: January
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Arthur Alan Wolk, Philip Browndies, : and Catherine Marchand : : v. : No. 1465 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: December 15, 2016 The School District of Lower Merion, : Appellant
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeals of -- ) ) R&R Group, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos , ) Under Contract No. SPO D-2920 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) R&R Group, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 52328, 52711 ) Under Contract No. SPO300-97-D-2920 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Francis Louis Zarrilli, Esq. Broomall,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sally Schwartz, Appellant v. No. 183 C.D. 2017 Argued October 17, 2017 Chester County Agricultural Land Preservation Board and Arborganic Acres Sally Schwartz
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. Case No.: 8:10-CV-1998-T-23EAJ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
United States of America v. Doucas et al Doc. 32 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION vs. Case No.: 8:10-CV-1998-T-23EAJ WILLIAM P.
More informationPrinceton Review Litigation Puts Renewal Condition to the Test
Princeton Review Litigation Puts Renewal Condition to the Test By Peter J. Klarfeld, Partner and David W. Koch, Partner, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, D.C. The ruling in Test Services, Inc. v.
More informationBEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA ) ) ) ) ) ) SECTION ONE
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA In the Matter of the Application by Benefis Healthcare for Repeal of the Certificate of Public Advantage ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT SECTION ONE
More informationProfessional sports challenge to California's liberal workers compensation system nearing resolution
Professional sports challenge to California's liberal workers compensation system nearing resolution Written for and first published by LawInSport.com on Tuesday, 06 August 2013. Written By Michael Pang
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 02, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2672 Lower Tribunal No. 12-15813 Dev D. Dabas and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-386 DESOTO GATHERING COMPANY, LLC, APPELLANT, VS. JANICE SMALLWOOD, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered JANUARY 14, 2010 APPEAL FROM THE WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CV-2008-165,
More informationTHE MONTH IN PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS COMPENSATION: NOVEMBER 2008 AT A GLANCE BY MITCHELL I GOLDING, ESQ. KENNEDY, DANIELS & LIPSKI (W)
THE MONTH IN PENNSYLVANIA WORKERS COMPENSATION: NOVEMBER 2008 AT A GLANCE BY MITCHELL I GOLDING, ESQ. KENNEDY, DANIELS & LIPSKI (W) 215-430-6362 OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE/FIREFIGHTER PRESUMPTION/REMAND The
More informationCase 1:15-cv RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164
Case 1:15-cv-00753-RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE [Dkt. No. 26] NORMARILY CRUZ, on behalf
More informationRecent Government Enforcement Actions and Private Antitrust Litigation Arthur N. Lerner Christine L. White
Antitrust Action: New Enforcement Moves in the Health Care Arena Recent Government Enforcement Actions and Private Antitrust Litigation Arthur N. Lerner Christine L. White Recent Government Enforcement
More informationDebora Schmidt v. Mars Inc
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-7-2014 Debora Schmidt v. Mars Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-1048 Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: Settlement Facility Dow Corning Trust. / Case No. 00-00005 Honorable Denise Page Hood ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING
More informationOn October 22, 2012, Appellee filed a praecipe for entry of. default judgment in the amount of $132, That same day, the court
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: STATE RESOURCES CORP. Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SPIRIT AND TRUTH WORSHIP AND TRAINING CHURCH, INC. Appellant No.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA John H. Morley, Jr., : Appellant : : v. : No. 3056 C.D. 2002 : Submitted: January 2, 2004 City of Philadelphia : Licenses & Inspections Unit, : Philadelphia Police
More informationTax Diligence, Representations, Covenants and Indemnifications in Business Acquisitions
Tax Diligence, Representations, Covenants and Indemnifications in Business Acquisitions Steven D. Bortnick and Timothy J. Leska Lorman Education Services Teleconference February 29, 2012 Part I Overview
More informationCrowdfunding under the JOBS Act. Brian Korn November 27, 2012
Crowdfunding under the JOBS Act Brian Korn November 27, 2012 Crowdfunding background Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non- Disclosure Comprises Title III of the Jumpstart Our
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SBA TOWERS II LLC v. Appellant WIRELESS HOLDINGS, LLC AND JEFF MACALARNEY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 325 WDA 2018 Appeal from
More informationVol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief California Supreme Court Provides Guidance on the Commissioned Salesperson Exemption KARIMAH J. LAMAR... 415 CA Labor & Employment Bulletin
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1106 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, and Plaintiff - Appellee, Defendant Appellant, AMERICAN FEDERATION
More informationJACE FRANK EDEN, Plaintiff/Appellant, FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INS. CO., and LAWYERS TITLE INS. CORP., Defendants/Appellees. No.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 1:16-cv-04203-AT Document 1 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. NETSPEND CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
Case: 14-1628 Document: 003112320132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-1628 FREEDOM MEDICAL SUPPLY INC, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MORRIS SHELKOFSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5083 Appeal from the
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- 2Connect W.L.L. Under Contract No. 2CON W 000276 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 59233 Shelly L. Ewald, Esq. Scott P. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Watt,
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-15-293 UNIFIRST CORPORATION APPELLANT V. LUDWIG PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A 71 EXPRESS TRAVEL PLAZA APPELLEE Opinion Delivered December 2, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
More information