The European Commission approved the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield on Tuesday, July 12, after European Union member states, through the Article 31 committee, approved the pact the previous week (more on the draft adequacy decision back in March here and the earlier agreement laying out the Privacy Shield here).
For those in the hospital industry hoping for additional clarity regarding the operation and billing of provider-based departments (PBDs), the CY 2017 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) Proposed Rule provides some much-needed insight but raises additional concerns.
I can’t recall any decision in which a judge openly compared his job to that of a tarot card reader, but a federal jurist in Florida recently did exactly that—in the context of a class action over lender-placed insurance (LPI).
Justice Perell’s July 7, 2016 decision in Berg v. Canadian Hockey League is the most recent development in the evolving law surrounding the role of third party funders in Canadian class proceedings, and in particular the role of defendants in motions for approval of third party funding arrangements.
In the recent decision of Ammazzini v Anglo American PLC (“Ammazzini”), 2016 SKCA 73, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal an order made in chambers conditionally staying a proposed multi-jurisdictional class action (the Ammazzini Action) against the respondents, Anglo American PLC, De Beers Canada Inc. and others, pending a certification decision in a similar class action commenced in Ontario by Kirk Brant (the Brant Action).