During this session, the panel will explore:
- Regulatory and economic pressures facing nonprofit health care providers
- Current trends in affiliations between nonprofit health care providers
- Financing and debt considerations when bringing together two nonprofit health care providers (including master indenture and other contractual considerations and acquisition finance)
- Legal considerations, such as affiliations between Catholic and non-Catholic systems, anti-trust, and state attorney general matters
Panelists
- Heidi H. Jeffery, Partner, Finance, Foley & Lardner LLP
- Richard F. Seiden, Partner, Health Care, Foley & Lardner LLP
- David L. Atchison, President and CEO, Ponder & Co.
- David Anderson, Owner, Health Care Futures
The Access to Capital Web conference series provides participants with needed information in the most efficient manner possible — only a telephone line and Internet access are required to participate — allowing you to stay up-to-date with timely information from anywhere in the nation.
There is no cost to participate in this program, but pre-registration is required. We look forward to having you join us.
People
Related Insights
16 September 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Shifting Views on Paid Administrative Leave
Employers often place employees on paid administrative leave while they investigate accusations of employee misconduct or make decisions regarding the employees’ employment.
16 September 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Complying With Unprecedented Criminal History Requirements in Los Angeles County
The Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers, which took effect on September 3, 2024, imposes several new compliance requirements regarding the consideration of criminal history in employment decisions.
16 September 2024
Consumer Class Defense Counsel
Fourth Circuit Holds No Article III Standing Where No Third-Party Viewed Inaccurate Information
On September 11, 2024, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no publication to a third party — and therefore no Article III standing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act — where the recipient of a consumer report did not read, understand, or otherwise consider allegedly inaccurate information appearing in the report.