Insurance & Financial Services

During the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) symposium series in June 2019, the featured panel discussed whether it was necessary for the Bureau to further define “abusive acts or practices” under the Dodd-Frank Act.

As they do at this time each year, the SEC Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (“SEC”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) recently announced their examination priorities for 2020.

This post explains how to set up and monitor a retirement plan fiduciary committee in a manner that insulates the plan sponsor’s board and senior management from unnecessary fiduciary exposure.

Open Enrollment is fast approaching and the landscape with be notably different than in years past. From the introduction of short-term plans and association health plans to proposals to allow for greater use of health reimbursement arrangements, the strength of the Marketplace will be tested and will inform future policy considerations. We cover this and more in this week's health care preview.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the Department of Treasury (“Treasury”) released new guidelines (the “Guidance”) on the application and approval process for states seeking waivers through Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) from certain requirements for health plans issued under the ACA. The Guidance replaces guidelines issued under the Obama Administration and previously published on December 16, 2015. This post highlights how the Guidance differs from the Obama Administration guidelines and what those differences will mean for states seeking Section 1332 waivers.

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, applying New Hampshire law, held that a professional liability insurer did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by settling a New Hampshire medical malpractice suit over its insured’s objection. 

After being in the insurance industry for several decades in a variety of roles, I frequently get asked which insurtechs I think are going to be successful.

The potential to disrupt the historic insurance industry model has made insurtech one of the hottest new areas of innovation and investment, with entrepreneurs developing technologies at a breakneck pace and venture capital firms seeking to put investment dollars behind an exciting range of new products and services aimed at efficiencies and cost savings.

From May 22-26 Mintz Levin participated in the annual NAIC Insurance Summit in Kansas City. A main theme of this year’s Summit was technology and innovation. The Summit was remarkable in that it served as a meeting grounds for key market players: technology incumbents, such as insurers, insurtech start-ups, venture capital firms, accelerators, producers and regulators.

Decisions you make when founding and/or investing in an insurtech venture can dictate your regulatory obligations, tax liability, operational structure and, ultimately, profitability. Here are five seemingly simple questions to ask when launching an insurtech venture:

The Massachusetts Health Policy Commission conducted its fourth annual Cost Trends Hearing on October 17 and 18, 2016, under the requirements of Massachusetts’s 2012 health care reform legislation (“Chapter 224”).

Policyholders often seek to challenge an insurer’s denial of coverage on the grounds that the insurer waived a defense relied upon to deny coverage.

The Massachusetts Division of Insurance (DOI) recently held a two-day hearing on rate changes proposed by Massachusetts health insurance plans to be effective for the second quarter of 2016 (Q2).

Created by the Immigration Act of 1990, the Immigrant Investor Program, more commonly referred to as the EB-5 program, offers foreign investors an opportunity to secure permanent residency in the United States by making a minimum capital investment of $1 million per investor into a New Commercial Enterprise (NCE) that will create at least 10 jobs for US workers.

The heady days of 2012 saw “Gangnam Style” dominate the U.S. music charts, Patricia Krentcil rocket to fame as the “New Jersey Tanning Mom,” and the New York Giants win the Super Bowl.

On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”

On February 8, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) approved changes to the IEEE Patent Policy that provide additional specificity as to the nature of the obligation attaching to member-owned patents that are essential to an IEEE standard.

Currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is Carnegie Mellon University’s (“CMU”) $1.535 billion judgment for patent infringement against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Marvell”), which is one of the largest damages awards for patent infringement in history.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l on patentable subject matter, courts have tried to follow the prescribed framework.

In Univ. of Utah Res. Foundation et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corp., No. 2014-1361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2014), the Federal Circuit once again has weighed in on the patent eligibility of Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s patents related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.