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.
More Uncertainty in Managing Multi-jurisdictional Class Actions: Leave to Appeal Granted in Ammazzini V Anglo American PLC
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).
Given the low probability that a class action will go to trial and the high probability that a settlement favorable to plaintiffs and their attorneys will be reached after class certification, there is a consistent “race to certification” in many consumer class action matters.
Courts applying BMW and State Farm often emphasize the Supreme Court’s admonition that the constitutional line is not “marked by a simple mathematical formula”—typically when rejecting a defendant’s argument that the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is indicative of an excessive award. But in Mercedes-Benz USA v. Carduco, Inc., the Texas Court of Appeals showed that this dictum is a two-way street, reducing a punitive award to a small fraction of the compensatory damages.
In the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Robins v. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), a handful of federal circuits have applied the decision to pending disputes over Article III standing.
5 Wishes for Securities Litigation Defense: Greater Director Involvement in Securities Litigation Defense and D&O Insurance
One of my “5 Wishes for Securities Litigation Defense” (April 30, 2016 post) is to increase the involvement of boards of directors in decisions concerning D&O insurance and the defense of securities litigation, including defense-counsel selection.
With the publication of a ten-year review of its systemic discrimination program on July 7, 2016, the EEOC seeks to blunt employer and judicial scrutiny of the EEOC’s litigation practices by emphasizing its internal staffing and technological improvements, the gains it has made over time in number of people served, programmatic relief achieved, and monetary relief obtained, and its vision for the future as a nationwide law enforcement agency uniquely positioned to overcome challenges faced by the private bar in avoiding binding employment arbitration agreements and securing class-wide relief under Title VII.
Sandhu V. HSBC Finance Mortgages Inc.: Disqualifying Representative Plaintiffs for the Use of Pre-certification “extortionate” Settlement Tactics in Fee Disclosure Case
Recently in Sandhu v. HSBC Finance Mortgages Inc., 2016 BCCA 301, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the “BCCA”) decertified a class action where the plaintiffs sought damages or restitution from HSBC Finance Mortgages Inc. and the Household Trust Company in relation to title insurance fees.