McGuireWoods has long been an avid supporter of the advancement of professional women. As part of our initiative seeking to expand the leadership of women in private equity, we are continuing our series of profiling women leaders in private equity. We are hopeful that this series will serve to inspire other women to pursue their…

Onex Corp. has announced that Onex Partners V will acquire Newport Healthcare.

Newport, based in Newport, R.I., is a provider of healing centers for teens and young adults struggling with primary mental health issues. Founded in 2008, the company’s offerings include residential treatment centers, partial hospitalization programs and intensive outpatient programs.

Onex Partners is…

On June 14, 2021, the Board of the newly-formed California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) held its first public meeting.  The Board had an extensive agenda, covering topics such as the laws affecting the Board and CPPA, initial hiring strategy for the CPPA, policies and practices on delegations of authority and conflicts of interest, establishment of subcommittees of the Board, notice to the Attorney General regarding the assumption of rulemaking under the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), and setting future agenda items and a meeting schedule for the Board.  (As a refresher, when the CPRA passed as a ballot measure last Fall, it established the CPPA as a first-of-its-kind agency solely devoted to the regulation and enforcement of consumer privacy.  The CPPA is tasked with enforcing the CPRA and developing a set of regulations providing guidance for businesses on how to comply with that new law.  For more on the CPRA, please see our post here.)

While the CPPA Board’s June 14 full-day meeting covered a lot of ground, it is clear there is much work to be done for the CPPA to emerge as an independent, fully-functional agency, let alone promulgating regulations in time to meet the CPRA’s July 1, 2022 deadline for final regulations.  Overall, the Board members appeared to be committed to working through these challenges, but acknowledged that they are under a lot of time pressure.

After years of litigation, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency’s (“OCC”) special purpose national bank charter (“fintech charter”) survives to see another day.  On June 3, 2021, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision denying the OCC’s motion to dismiss, delivering a blow to the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) and paving the way for the OCC to again accept applications for its fintech charter.

On June 8, the White House released the findings of a 100-day assessment of critical supply chains, identifying actions needed to bolster domestic manufacturing of critical goods, reduce dependence on foreign nations for supply chain needs, create jobs and address unfair trade practices.

For highlights of the report detailing structural weaknesses in supply chains for…

Northlane Capital Partners (NCP) has announced it has invested in EBS d/b/a The Difference Card.

The Difference Card, based in White Plains, N.Y., is a provider of healthcare cost containment solutions. Founded in 2001, the company generally targets small and mid-sized businesses and serves nearly 800 U.S. employers.

NCP, based in Bethesda, Md.,…

As previously discussed, on April 3, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a process for inquiries to be submitted to OIG about whether administrative enforcement discretion would be provided for certain arrangements directly connected to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). OIG established this process to provide regulatory flexibility to ensure necessary care responding to COVID-19, particularly with respect to the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and civil monetary penalty (CMP) beneficiary inducement prohibition provisions. OIG responses are publicly available through a frequently asked questions (FAQ) posting on the OIG COVID-19 portal. OIG has continued to update this FAQ since its initial publication, including the recent inquiry discussed in our May 17 post, providing guidance on the following question:

“Would the offer or provision of cash, cash-equivalent, or in-kind incentives or rewards to Federal health care program beneficiaries who receive COVID-19 vaccinations during the public health emergency violate OIG’s administrative enforcement authorities?”

A broad range of entities are offering a wide variety of incentives and rewards from food and beverages, tickets to concerts and baseball games, cash, to even State sponsored exclusive lottery tickets, to individuals who receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Because effective, expeditious, and widespread vaccine administration is crucial to the COVID-19 pandemic response, OIG has concluded that because certain incentives and rewards may promote broader access to and uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations, these incentives do not violate OIG’s administrative enforcement authorities.

A partnership comprised of funds managed The Blackstone Group, The Carlyle Group and Hellman & Friedman will make a majority investment in Medline Industries, according to a news release.

Medline, based in Northfield, Ill., is a manufacturer and distributor of healthcare supplies. The company reported 2020 revenue of $17.5 billion.

The Blackstone Group,…

Yesterday, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) in a decision that emphasizes the importance of how organizations manage access to their systems.  Employees with access to information at work sometimes access that information with improper motives, and in violation of office policies.  This inappropriate use of access has led to federal criminal prosecution for some.  In Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783, the United States Supreme Court held that the CFAA is not properly applied to justify those prosecutions.

Nathan Van Buren was a police officer who accepted $6,000 from Andrew Albo, a participant in an FBI sting operation, to search a police database to determine whether a woman Albo professed interest in was an undercover police officer.  Van Buren ran a search for the woman’s license plate in the Georgia Crime Information Center database.  For doing so, Van Buren was charged and convicted of violating the CFAA, because he had “exceeded” his authority to access that database.