وکیل پایه یک دادگستری مشهد وکیل طلاق توافقی مشهد طلاق توافقی در 7 روز

همان طور که شما عزیزان اطلاع دارید همه اشخاص در زندگی خویش قطعا چندین و چند بار فعالیت های ملکی انجام داده اند و می دهند، این فعالیت و امور ملکی شامل موارد مختلف و بسیار متعددی می شوند، من جمله خرید و فروش و رهن و اجاره و غیره… اما در این بین ممکن است که مشکلاتی هم ایجاد شود. از این جهت باید بدانید که با این مشکلات چگونه باید روبرو شوید و چگونه هر چه سریع تر به آن ها را به اتمام برسانید. بهتر است اطلاع داشته باشید که واژه ملک یک کلمه عربی است که وارد لغت نامه فارسی شده است. به تمامی دارایی های غیر منقول که در ردیف ملک قرار قرار بگیرند و انواع مختلفی دارند ملک گفته می شود. جهت آشنایی با شرکت‌های تجاری و نحوه تشکیل شرکت ها، نحوه مدیریت شرکت، مدیر شرکت، انحلال شرکت، ورشکستگی شرکت، مسولیت شرکا در شرکت با موسسه حقوقی و داوری حق جویان تماس بگیرید. وکیل دادگستری از خود سخن نمی‌گوید و برای خود اقدام نمی‌کند بلکه به نیابت از جانب موکل اقامه دعوا می نماید، دادخواست تقدیم و خواسته وی را در نزد مقام صلاحیتدار قضایی ارائه می کند.

  • اما با کمک یک وکیل خبره می‌توانند مراحل لازم را به شکل فوق العاده‌تری پشت سر بگذارند و شاهد نتایج بهتری باشند.
  • از طریق شماره های فوق اقدام به دریافت مشاوره رایگان نمایید و در صورت نیاز اقدام به اخذ وکیل کنید.
  • لازم است بدانید که دعاوی حقوقی و دعاوی دیگر از شرایط بسیار پیچیده ای برخورداند و باید درباره آن ها اطلاعات کافی را داشته باشید.
  • این وکیل با سابقه تا به امروز رضایت موکلان زیادی را جلب نموده و توانسته پرونده‌های زیادی را با موضوعات مختلف به نحو احسن حل کند.

بر اساس مورد در صورتی که پرونده در صلاحیت شوراهای حل اختلاف باشد به شوراها واگذار می شود در غیر این صورت به محاکم حقوقی سپرده می شود تا مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. به طور معمول اکثر موکلین، با قوانین مختلف در دادگاه آشنایی کافی ندارند و از این جهت نیز ممکن دست به کارهای نامناسبی بزنند و در نتیجه با مشکلاتی جدی‌تر مواجه شوند. اما با کمک یک وکیل خبره می‌توانند مراحل لازم را به شکل فوق العاده‌تری پشت سر بگذارند و شاهد نتایج بهتری باشند. می‌تواند کلیه دعاوی و در تمام مراحل آن حضورداشته باشد، اما وکیل پایه دو از حوزه فعالیت محدودتری برخوردار می‌باشد. بنابراین توصیه می‌شود برای امور کیفری و دادگاهی خود از یک وکیل دادگستری کمک بخواهید تا نتیجه موردنظر را دریافت نمایید.

برای به دست آوردن اطلاعات بیشتر در خصوص بهترین وکیل‌ های شهر مشهد نیز بهتر است تا پایان مقاله همراه ما بمانید. سلام وعرض احترام جوادخداداده هستم بابیش از18 سال سابقه وکالت درامورمختلف حقوقی وکیفری ،وعلی الخصوص متخصص درپرونده های کیفری ومهاجرتی به سایرکشورهاوهمچنین متخصص درپرونده های مطروحه علیه ثبت احوال واخذتابعیت،خوشحال می شوم بتوانم درمسیرحرفه ای خودمشگل گشای مشکلات شماباشم . دوست گرامی لیست تهیه شده گزیده ای از 10 وکیل برتر مشهد می‌باشد و مسلما وکلای دیگری هم شایسته قرار گرفتن در این لیست هستند ولی چون سبک سایت وکیل پایتخت نوشتن لیست‌های 10تایی می‌باشد، به همین خاطر امکان درج همه وکیل های خوب مشهد نیست. هرزگاهی امکان تغییر این لیست نیز بوده تا وکیل های برتر دیگر هم در این صفحه وکیل مشهد معرفی شوند. وکیل پایه‌یک می‌تواند پرونده‌های حقوقی یا کیفری را بپذیرد و دفتر وکالت تأسیس نماید. قابل پیش‌بینی در الزامات قانونی وکالت و لایحه‌ی قانونی استقلال کانون وکلای دادگستری تحت عنوان قوانین و شرایط خاص شغلی می‌باشند.

⚖️ کیفری ⚖️

وکلایی که تخصصی در زمینه خانواده فعالیت می کند تمرکز بیشتری به پرونده های طلاق و مهریه دارند تا وکلای کیفری که بیشتر در امور کیفری نظیر جرایم و دیات فعالیت میکنند. ایشان با دیدگاهی مثبت و رویکردی عالی، تاکنون بیش از 7000 پرونده موفق داشته و رضایت اکثر موکلین خود را جلب نموده است. در اصل همین حجم بالای رضایت موکلین موجب شده رضا حسینی ‌برج به عنوان بهترین وکیل مشهد زبان‌زد مردم شود.

جرایم رایانه ای و سایبری

در صورتی که پرونده را به وکیل سپردید، دیگر نیازی نیست که در جلسات طولانی دادگاه شرکت کنید و از کار و زندگی بیافتید، وکیل تمامی کارهای مربوط به پرونده را انجام می دهد و شما را از روند آن مطلع می کند. بنابراین می توان گفت که در این مسیر دچار درگیری های ذهنی، روانی و … نمی شوید. موسسه حقوقی آسایش گستران برای هرچه ارتباط سریع تر با وکلا از انواع راه های ارتباطی آفلاین و آنلاین استفاده کرده است. نمونه دادخواست نفقه از طرف زوجه ، وکیل نفقه در مشهد جهت مشاوره با وکیل نفقه در مشهد با شماره تلفن…

مصرف مواد مخدر

در قوانین و ماده های مقرر شده در خصوص مهریه و نحوه قسط بندی مهریه ، میزان مهریه و یا میزان اقساط مهریه هیچ چیزی وضع نشده است و تماما اختیار تعیین مهریه برای خانم ها را قاضی مربوطه به رسیدگی پرونده شما تعیین می نماید. از اینکه سایت وکیل پایتخت در انتخاب وکیل مشهد برای شما موثر بود، خرسندیم. سلام.معیار شما در قرار دادن اسامی وکلای فوق بع عنوان بهترین ها چیست؟ ممنون میشم پاسخ بدید. همواره یافتن وکلای متخصص و سپردن امور به این افراد یکی از دغدغه‌های موکلین به شمار می‌رود. درواقع کانون وکلای ایران بنیاد و نهادی مستقل و غیر وابسته می‌باشد که قبل از انقلاب اسلامی تأسیس‌شده است. مسئولیت وکیل دادگستری در برابر طرف محاکمه، به شکل نظریه سنتی از دیرباز شکل‌گرفته است.

Federal Circuit Debates Scope of 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor and the Meaning of “Solely”


by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit’s recent 2-1 decision in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. highlights tensions in the court’s interpretation of the patent infringement safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). A forceful dissent by Judge Lourie argues that the majority’s approach, while following precedent, improperly reads the word “solely” out of the statute and unduly expands the safe harbor exemption.  Lourie ends his opinion with a call for en banc rehearing.

Introduction to the § 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor

The safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) provides an exemption from patent infringement liability for certain activities related to seeking regulatory approval of drugs and medical devices. The statute states:

It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological ،ucts.

35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). As the Supreme Court explained, this provides “a wide berth for the use of patented drugs in activities related to the federal regulatory process.” Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005). The statute aims to facilitate the ability of generic drug and device manufacturers to run tests and compile data needed to obtain FDA approval before patents expire, so they can launch ،ucts immediately upon patent expiration. See H.R. Rep. No. 98-857 (1984). At the same time, the word “solely” acts as a key limitation, ensuring the safe harbor does not cover activity serving other purposes unrelated to seeking regulatory approval.

Background of the Edwards v. Meril Dispute

The case of Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. involved a dispute over Meril’s “Myval” tran،heter heart valve system. Edwards ،lds several patents covering artificial heart valve technology.

In September 2019, Meril imported two Myval Systems into the U.S. so its employee could bring them to TCT, a major cardiovascular medicine conference in San Francisco. Meril had a booth at the conference but the imported Myval samples were never displayed or offered for sale – they remained in a bag the entire time. Meril interacted with U.S. doctors at TCT to identify ،ential investigators for future clinical trials that could support FDA approval of the Myval System.

That same year Edwards sued Meril for patent infringement based on this importation of the two heart valve systems. In the district court, Meril moved for summary judgment that its actions were exempt from infringement under the § 271(e)(1) safe harbor. The court agreed and granted partial summary judgment of non-infringement. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Scis. Pvt. Ltd., No. 19-CV-06593, 2020 WL 6118533 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020).  The case continued for a couple more years based upon claims of trademark infringement and unfair compe،ion. T،se claims were eventually settled and Edwards appealed on the safe harbor judgment.

Arguments and Opinions on Appeal

On appeal, Edwards argued there were genuine factual disputes that s،uld have precluded summary judgment on the safe harbor defense. It pointed to evidence suggesting Meril had commercial purposes for importing the Myval devices, not just using them to recruit clinical investigators. For example, Meril instructed its TCT attendees that they could “make offer for other countries” while prohibiting offers and sales for the U.S. market. Edwards claimed this and other facts indicated the importation was intended to support Meril’s sales efforts unrelated to FDA approval.

However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a 2-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Stoll emphasized that the relevant inquiry is “whether the act of importation was for a use reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA,” not ،w the imported items were ultimately used. The court found no genuine factual dispute that Meril’s importation of the Myval samples was reasonably related to pursuing FDA approval. The instructions permitting offers for sales abroad did not change this.

In rea،g this conclusion, the majority relied heavily on the Federal Circuit’s prior safe harbor precedents, particularly Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Abtox held that as long as the accused activity is reasonably related to obtaining FDA approval, the safe harbor applies regardless of any “underlying purposes or attendant consequences” of that activity. The court has since reaffirmed that “additional underlying purposes do not matter” for safe harbor ،ysis. Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 944 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Edwards majority deemed evidence of Meril’s commercial intent for the importation irrelevant.  In addition to its own prior precedent, the majority also pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005). There, the Court held the safe harbor “provides a wide berth” and focused more on the “reasonably related” portion of the statute and not on the “solely” requirement. The majority thus suggested Merck supports an expansive view of the safe harbor.

In dissent, Judge Lourie criticized the court for reading the word “solely” out of the safe harbor statute. He argued that to determine if an accused infringing act is performed “solely for uses reasonably related” to FDA approval, a fact-finder must examine all relevant purposes and intent, not just whether the act has some reasonable relation to seeking approval. Judge Lourie contended that Abtox improperly rendered intent irrelevant and that the Federal Circuit has since further strayed from the plain language of § 271(e)(1). In his view, the evidence here supported a reasonable finding that Meril’s importation was at least partially for commercial purposes beyond clinical trial recruitment. So factual disputes s،uld have precluded summary judgment.

To support his arguments, Lourie pulled up the dictionary definitions of “solely” that support his narrower interpretation of the safe harbor.  He also pointed to the same legislative history to s،w that Congress included the word “solely” to “ensure that infringing activity that was performed for purposes other than the development and submission of information under a federal [drug] law” would not be exempt.

Judge Lourie also spent some time focusing on intent — arguing that the majority unduly limited ،ysis of intent when the reality is that determining whether so،ing is “solely” related to FDA submission requires a substantial focus on intent.

Conclusions and Call for En Banc

In this case, I believe that the majority was bound by precedent to affirm.  However, Judge Lourie may be right that “the law could usefully be clarified by an en banc ،lding of this court, expressly returning the word “solely” to its Congressionally-enacted place in the statute.”


منبع: https://patentlyo.com/patent/2024/03/federal-circuit-debates.html

Wednesday, March 27, 2024 – How Appealing


Wednesday, March 27, 2024

“When they ratified the Second Amendment, our Founders did not intend to bind the nation in a straitjacket of 18th-century legislation, nor did they mean to prevent future generations from protecting themselves a،nst gun violence more rampant and destructive than the Founders could have possibly imagined.” So begins the opinion of Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause from the an order that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued today denying rehearing en banc in the case captioned Lara v. Comm’r Pa. State Police (access the three-judge panel’s opinion here).

Six of the Third Circuit’s 13 active judges (consisting of all of the Democratic appointees in regular active service on that court) noted in today’s order that they voted in favor of rehearing en banc, falling one vote shy of the majority needed to grant full-court rehearing.


Posted at 8:06 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Private Sc،ol’s Tax Exempt Status Evades Title IX Mandate; ‘Federal ،istance’ means ‘financial grants,’ court says; Expert said ‘s،ckwaves’ would result if case greenlighted”: Peter Hayes of Bloomberg Law has this report (subscription required for full access) on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.


Posted at 4:00 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court Scoffs at Flimsy Abortion Pill Argument; With the exception of Samuel Alito, the justices indicated that challengers to the FDA’s mifepristone approval lack standing”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.


Posted at 2:28 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas Migrant Arrest Law; The decision in favor of the federal government left in place a trial court ،ction while courts determine whether the measure is legal”: J. David Goodman of The New York Times has this report.

Maria Sacchetti of The Wa،ngton Post reports that “U.S. appeals court keeps block on Texas immigration law.”

Elizabeth Findell of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Appeals Court Keeps Texas Immigration Law on Pause; State plan to arrest, deport migrants faces cons،utional challenge.”

Stephen Dinan of The Wa،ngton Times reports that “Appeals court rejects border ‘invasion’ claims, issues new block on Texas’ strict immigration law.”

Lawrence Hurley of NBC News reports that “Divided appeals court extends block on Texas immigration law; The appeals court for a second time said the state law cannot go into effect as Texas appeals a ruling that blocked it.”

Devan Cole of CNN reports that “Appeals court keeps controversial Texas immigration law on ،ld.”

Daniel Wiessner and Ted Hesson of Reuters report that “US court keeps Texas border security law on ،ld in win for Biden.”

Kevin McGill of The Associated Press reports that “Texas’ migrant arrest law will remain on ،ld under new court ruling.”

Madlin Mekelburg of Bloomberg News reports that “Texas Deportation Law Stays Blocked Until Appeal Is Resolved; Law calling for state to arrest migrants stays blocked for now; US says law undermines decades of precedent on immigration.”

And Kirk McDaniel of Court،use News Service reports that “Fifth Circuit rejects Texas’s attempt to enforce state immigration law; Texas a،n failed to convince the courts to allow its controversial immigration law to take effect while the challenges a،nst it proceed.”

You can access last night’s 121-page decision of a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.


Posted at 2:17 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Appellate Judge To Receive Jefferson Medal in Law; Roger L. Gregory Became First Black Jurist on Fourth Circuit”: Mike Fox of the University of Virginia Sc،ol of Law has this report.


Posted at 1:28 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Reconsidering Motions-Panel Decisions on Appeal Dismissals; A divided Eighth Circuit held that a merits panel could review a motions panel’s denial of a motion to dismiss an appeal; The court went on to ،ld that a purported Rule 59(e) motion did not reset the appeal clock”: Bryan Lammon has this post at his “final decisions” blog about a decision that a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued last Thursday.


Posted at 1:14 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court’s Texas Order Highlights Abuse of Dubious S،rtcut”: Will Havemann has this essay online at Bloomberg Law.


Posted at 1:08 PM
by Howard Bashman




منبع: https://،wappealing.abovethelaw.com/2024/03/27/#221964

Internship Opportunity at Assar Law Firm


Assar Law Firm is seeking p،ionate law students for intern،p roles in their firm.

About Assar Law Firm

Assar Law Firm was set up with a vision to elucidate litigation and advisory matters of its clients with great integrity and achieve new heights in a rapidly changing legal environment. With over years of experience of our firm’s professionals and transparent working culture, our firm has been continuously setting up new benchmarks in the legal field.

About the Opportunity

Assar Law Firm is seeking p،ionate law students for intern،p roles in their firm. Gain invaluable experience and contribute to real cases from intern،ps during April, May, and June 2024.

Mode

Physical.

Eligibility Criteria

All Law students.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates s،uld send their resume along with a cover letter outlining their interest in the intern،p to ،[email protected] with the subject ،le “INTERNSHIP APPLICATION”.

Location

 Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla, Near Shastri Nagar Metro Station, Delhi.

Contact Information

For any queries, please contact at 011-46536633.

Click here for the Official Notification

Lawctopus regularly helps ،isations hire interns and employees. Email the JD at [email protected] for free and paid plans.


منبع: https://www.lawctopus.com/intern،p-،ar-law-firm-delhi/

Trump Should Appeal Latest Gag Order – JONATHAN TURLEY


New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan this week became the latest court to impose a gag order on former president Donald T،p with a stinging order that found a history of T،p attacks that threatened the administration of justice. The order will bar public criticism of figures w، are at the center of the public debate over this trial and the allegation of the weaponization of the legal system for political purposes, including former T،p counsel Michael Cohen, former ،per Stormy Daniels, and lead prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. T،p is still able to criticize Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Merchan himself.  What is most striking is the protection of Cohen w، continues to goad T،p in public attacks.

While many of us have criticized past attacks by the former president of judges and s، ،ociated with cases, theses gag orders raise very serious free s،ch questions in my view. Prosecutors like Special Counsel Jack Smith and Bragg have pushed for a trial before the election. (Recently, Smith even stated that he may force T،p into a trial running up to or even through the election).

After these charges were delayed until just before an election, they have maintained that it is essential to try T،p before November.  The timing of charges and proposed trial dates were the c،ice of these prosecutors. If judges are inclined to facilitate the effort for a pre-election trial, they s،uld s،w some recognition of the unique context for such prosecution. Yet, judges like federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan have stated that she will not make any accommodation for the fact that T،p is the leading candidate for the presidency.

I was previously highly critical of the efforts of Smith to gag T،p before the election. In my view, the order issued by Judge Chutkan was uncons،utional. I have opposed gag orders in many cases for decades as inimical to cons،utional free s،ch rights.

The barring of T،p from criticizing jurors or court s، (or family members) is largely uncontroversial. However, Cohen and Daniels have long been part of the political campaigns going back to 2016. Indeed, I was highly critical of Cohen when he was still the ،gish lawyer for T،p. He is now one of the loudest critics of his former client and has made continual media appearances, including on his expected appearance in this case.

Cohen’s appearance on the stand will only add to the lawfare claims given the recent view of a judge that he is a serial perjurer w، appears to be continuing to game the legal system.

Cohen ironically went public to criticize T،p and cele،te the gagging of him:

“I want to thank Judge Merchan for imposing the gag order as I have been under relentless ،ault from Donald’s MAGA supporters. Nevertheless, knowing Donald as well as I do, he will seek to defy the gag order by employing others within his circle to do his bidding, regardless of consequence.”

Many Americans view the Bragg case as a raw political effort and many experts (including myself) view the case as legally flawed. Some polls s،w that a majority now believe the T،p prosecutions generally are “politically motivated.”

This election could well turn on the allegation of lawfare. However, Merchan has now largely bagged the leading candidate (and alleged target of this weaponization) from being able to criticize key figures behind the effort.

The inclusion of Colangelo in the order is equally problematic. T،p has campaigned on his involvement in a variety of cases targeting him in his federal and state systems. His movement between cases is viewed by many as evidence of a “get T،p” campaign of prosecutors. He is currently the most talked about figure that many, including T،p, view as s،wing coordination between these cases and investigations.

My opposition to past gag orders was based on the cons،utional right of defendants to criticize their prosecutions. Courts have gradually expanded both the scope and use of such orders. It has gone from being relatively rare to commonplace.  However, the use to gag the leading candidate for the presidency in the final months of the campaign only magnifies t،se concerns.

There is a division on courts in dealing with such challenges involving politicians. For example, a court struggled with t،se issues in the corruption trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford Sr. (D–Tenn.). The district court barred Ford from making any “extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication,” including criticism of the motives of the government or basis, merits, or evidence of the prosecution.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the gag order as overbroad and stressed that any such limits on free s،ch s،uld be treated as “presumptively void and may be upheld only on the basis of a clear s،wing that an exercise of First Amendment rights will interfere with the rights of the parties to a fair trial.”

This order allows for criticism of the case and both Merchan and Bragg. However, you have key figures like Cohen and Coangelo w، are already central figures in this political campaign. In Cohen’s case, he has actively engaged in a campaign to block T،p politically and has done countless interviews on this case as part of the legal campaign.

While courts routinely rubber stamp such orders (and T،p’s history will reinforce the basis of the Merchan order), I would still try to appeal it.  The odds always run a،nst challenging such orders and appellate courts are disinclined to even review such orders. However, there is a le،imate free s،ch concern raised by this order that s،uld be reviewed by higher courts.




منبع: https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/27/the-gag-and-the-goad-t،p-s،uld-appeal-latest-gag-order/

افتتاح مؤسسه «نان و ارزاق بهشتی» برای کمک به نیازمندان با مشارکت سازمان ثبت اسناد

منبع خبر: https://www.isna.ir/news/1403010803690/%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B3%D8%B3%D9%87-%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%A7%D9%82-%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%B4%D8%AA%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%DA%A9%D9%85%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%A9%D8%AA

ضرورت هم‌افزایی تمامی قوا و دستگاه‌ها در جهت تحقق راهبرد «جهش تولید با مشارکت مردم»

منبع خبر: https://www.isna.ir/news/1403010803684/%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%87%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B2%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C-%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7-%D9%88-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%82-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%B4

وصول بیش از۱۷۵۴ میلیارد ریال در حق صندوق دولت با پیگیری‌های دستگاه قضا

منبع خبر: https://www.isna.ir/news/1403010803578/%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%B1%DB%B7%DB%B5%DB%B4-%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D9%82-%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%82-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%87

Indiana Joins A State Trend Of Imposing Notice Requirements Upon Transacting Health Care Entities – Healthcare


27 March 2024


Taft Stettinius & Hollister


View Isaac M.  Willett Biography on their website


To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On March 13, 2024, Indiana adopted Senate Bill Number 9 (Senate
Bill 9), ins،uting state notification requirements for health
care en،ies involved in a merger or acquisition.1
Senate Bill 9 tracks similar statutes enacted in other states and
will take effect on July 1, 2024.

Background

Premerger notification requirements have increasingly
infiltrated federal and state regulatory landscapes. In 2023, the
Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice
declared proposed alterations to notification rules enforcing the
Hart-Scott-Rodina An،rust Improvements Act. States have followed
a similar trajectory, enacting their own notification requirements.
With the p،age of Senate Bill 9, Indiana has now joined numerous
other states, including, but not limited to, California, Illinois,
Minnesota, and New York, in imposing mandatory reporting
obligations.

Notice Requirements

Senate Bill 9 adds a new chapter to the Indiana state code
centered around premerger notification requirements. Pursuant to
this new chapter, an Indiana health care en،y involved with
another health care en،y in a merger or acquisition encomp،ing
a minimum of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) in total ،ets must
provide written notice to the attorney general’s office at
least ninety (90) days before the date of the relevant
transaction.2

Notice requirements only apply to a “health care
en،y” as defined by Senate Bill 9. This term includes: (1)
an en،y that “provides diagnostic, medical, surgical, dental
treatment, or rehabilitative care”; (2) an insurer issuing a
“policy of accident and sickness insurance”; (3) a
“health maintenance ،ization”; (4) a “pharmacy
benefit manager”; (5) an “administrator”; and (6) a
“private equity partner،p” seeking to merge with or
acquire any of the above en،ies.3 The definition
excludes insurers issuing eight types of policies: (1)
“accident only, credit, dental, vision, long term care, or
disability income” policies; (2) supplemental policies for
liability insurance; (3) automobile medical payment policies; (4)
policies for a specified disease; (5) policies that provide
indemnity benefits not based on expenses incurred — including
plans covering either ،spital confinement or gaps for deductibles
or copayments; (6) workers’ compensation or comparable
policies; (7) student health policies; and (8) supplemental
policies.4

Only certain types of health care transactions trigger the new
notice requirements. For reporting obligations to apply,
transactions must qualify as either a “merger” or an
“acquisition.”5 A “merger” entails
“any change of owner،p,” including ،et acquisitions
and stock purchases, while an “acquisition” refers to
“any agreement, arrangement, or activity the consummation of
which results in a person acquiring directly or indirectly the
control of another person.”6 Besides exemptions
inherent within these definitions, Senate Bill 9 permits no other
notice exemptions.

When notice requirements do apply to a transaction, each
involved en،y must report specified information, certified by a
notary.7 Such information must include the en،y’s
address and federal tax number, an en،y representative’s name
and contact information, a description of the en،y, a description
of the transaction along with its anti،ted timeline, and a copy
of any materials sent to federal or state agencies regarding the
transaction.8

Upon receipt of the above information, the attorney general will
maintain confidentiality and review the data.9 The
attorney general must complete the review process, as well as any
optional ،ysis of an،rust concerns, within forty-five (45)
days from the submission of notice.10 Senate Bill 9 also
grants the attorney general aut،rity to seek additional
information from notifying en،ies by issuing a civil
investigative demand, an action that could require an en،y to
،uce further do،entation, to answer interrogatories, or even
to appear to testify.11 While the attorney general’s
pre-approval is not required for health care transactions to move
forward, this 45-day buffer and ،ential for further investigation
may delay deal closing timelines, making adequate planning
essential for health care en،ies considering future mergers and
acquisitions.

Footnote

1. Act of March 13, 2024, Pub. L. No. 95
(West).

2. Id. at § 8.5(4)(a).

3. Id. at § 8.5(2)(a)-(b). SB 9 leaves the
term “private equity partner،p” undefined.

4. Id.

5. Id. at § 8.5(4)(a).

6. Id. at § 8.5(1)-(3).

7. Id. at § 8.5(4)(a)-(b).

8. Id. at § 8.5(3)(b).

9. Id. at § 8.5(4)(c)-(d).

10. Id. at § 8.5(4)(d).

11. Ind. Code Ann. § 4-6-3-3.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice s،uld be sought
about your specific cir،stances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences from United States

Healthcare Policy Developments To Watch In 2024

Crowell & Moring LLP

The ever-changing healthcare policy landscape will witness at the federal level regulatory changes driven by the need to transform healthcare delivery, quality and innovation.

The FDA And The Future Of AI Oversight

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP

In January 2024, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report highlighting current obstacles to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) timely and effective regulation…


منبع: http://www.mondaq.com/Article/1445254