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.
As we discussed in Part I, the United States does not have a single, comprehensive federal law governing biometric data. However, we have recently seen an increasing number of states focusing on this issue. Part I summarized legislative activity on this issue in 2020. In this Part II, we discuss noteworthy legislation to monitor in 2021.
What to Expect in 2021
At least two states—New York and Maryland—have already introduced biometrics legislation in this first month of 2021.
New York – AB 27
On January 6, 2021, the New York Assembly introduced the Biometric Privacy Act (BPA), a New York state biometric law aimed at regulating businesses handling biometric data. BPA will prohibit businesses from collecting biometric identifiers or information without first receiving informed consent from the individual, prohibit profiting from the data, and will require a publicly available written retention and destruction policy. As proposed, the statute contains a private right of action; and if passed, it will permit consumers to sue businesses for improperly collecting and using their biometric data. The statute follows Illinois’s BIPA, allowing recovery of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater, along with attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief.
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a hospital reimbursement consultant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the consultant could be held liable under the FCA based on the theory that the consultant’s solicitations of fees-for-recommendations could be found to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”).
In United States ex rel. Graziosi v. R1 RCM…
On January 21, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed modifications to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH).
The proposed rule is part of HHS’ Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care, which seeks to promote value-based healthcare by examining federal regulations that impede efforts among healthcare providers and health plans to better coordinate care for patients. Specifically, HHS aims to amend the regulations implemented pursuant to HIPAA and HITECH where the rules present barriers to coordinated care and case management or where they otherwise impose burdens on covered entities that do not increase individuals’ privacy protections.
