Executive Summary
Companies in the health care industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.
Companies in the healthcare industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax, Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
Context
As we described in our client alert dated September 14, 2016, in the aftermath of the real estate downturn from 1989 to 1993, when real estate mortgage lenders began to contemplate making new mortgage loans, they sought to create new legal structures to prevent their prospective borrowers from filing for Chapter 11, and to ameliorate the adverse consequences, if such a filing were to occur.
In our client alert dated September 14, 2016, we discussed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, which refused to invalidate a bankruptcy filing made without the consent of its lender who held a “Golden Share” as void against federal public policy.
On November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that claims for “make-whole” amounts were valid and enforceable as “redemption premiums” under New York law despite the automatic acceleration of the underlying debt upon the issuer filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. See In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (the “EFH Decision”).
In our previous two news alerts,1 we examined decisions that potentially undermine key elements of the legal structures that lenders created in response to their experiences in the United States Bankruptcy Courts during the real estate downturn of 1988 through 1992, including the involuntary restructure of their indebtedness and liens under the cram-down provisions of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Codeâ€).
The enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which ended the many tax shelter advantages previously available to real estate investors, coupled with the savings and loan crises, effectively collapsed the real estate boom of the early-to-mid 1980’s. From 1988 to 1993, countless numbers of real estate loans went into default and many real estate borrowers sought to involuntarily restructure their loans through the “cram-down” provisions of Chapter 11 under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
I. Introduction