In this clip from the 2012 PLUS Medical PL Symposium session entitled “Private Equity in Healthcare: What’s the Attraction?” moderator James J. Kennedy III (Carlton Fields, P.A.) and Todd Rudsenske (Cain Brothers & Co.) answer audience questions.
PLUS members can view this entire educational session by visiting www.plusweb.org/education/multimedia. You must be a member and logged-in to the website to view the multimedia content.
Session panelist not featured in this clip: John E. Telenko, RPLU (Allied World Assurance Company, Ltd.).
The PLUS Texas Chapter held a networking event June 21 in Houston. Sixty five professional liability practitioners registered for this fun event at The Tasting Room Wine Cafe. PLUS blog received a few photos of the fun, below.
The US Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Arizona Immigration Law in a decision announced this morning, June 25, 2012. While Arizona may have significant frustrations with how the Federal Government is regulating immigration law, they do not have the power to undermine that Federal Law.
An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.
Link to Supreme Court decision