Cornell Capital and Trilantic North America have acquired trustaff Management and CardioSolution, according to a news release.
As part of the transaction, the firms will also acquire Stella.ai in a plan to combine the companies to create a healthcare staffing platform with a technology-driven approach.
trustaff, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a provider…
On Jan. 15, 2021, a New York state court judge issued an opinion denying an insurer’s motion to dismiss a claim for coverage under a representations and warranties insurance (RWI) policy in WPP Group USA, Inc. v. RB/TDM Investors, LLC et al. More specifically, the court rejected the insurer’s argument that the claim was subject to certain exclusions under the policy and ordered the parties to proceed with discovery.
The court’s decision is interesting in several respects — not the least of which is that judicial opinions relating to RWI policies are quite rare. RWI policies are generally purchased by transactional buyers seeking to guard against misrepresentations made by sellers during the acquisition process without having to seek recourse against the sellers themselves for any potential losses. Typically, these policies provide that any disputes concerning an insurer’s coverage or payment obligations are to be resolved in confidential arbitration proceedings that do not generate public opinions. The RWI policy at issue in WPP Group, however, provided the insured with the option of bringing claims regarding the policy in either confidential arbitration or in New York state or federal courts.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and specifically the Privacy Rule under HIPAA’s implementing regulations, patients have a right to access their health information held by health care providers. In 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued guidance stressing the importance of this right. The OCR also implemented a HIPAA Right of Access Initiative as an enforcement priority in 2019, and the OCR has since actively pursued violations under the right of access standard.
McGuireWoods is continuing its effort to profile up-and-coming women leaders in private equity. For this profile, we are pleased to feature Nicole Byers of Housatonic Partners. Access her profile.
To recommend a rising star for a future interview, email Amber Walsh at awalsh@mcguirewoods.com.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
