Insights

Washington – August 17, 2023: The 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 47 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 41 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – August 18, 2022: The 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 54 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 32 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.”

Washington – August 19, 2021: The 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 53 firm lawyers as "Best Lawyers" and 13 lawyers as “Ones to Watch.” The publication also named partner William H. Frankel the Best Lawyers 2022 Copyright Law "Lawyer of the Year" in Chicago.

On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Maine Cmty. Health Options et al v. United States, ruling in favor of Maine and companion insurers in the long running Affordable Care Act §1342 “risk corridors” litigation, and confirming the government’s obligation to pay insurers approximately $13 billion for their work related to the ACA. Under the risk corridors program, the government and the health plans shared risk during the first three years of the ACA exchanges, and had reciprocal statutory payment obligations; however, after the health plans performed, the government refused to make full payment, arguing that Congress’ refusal to appropriate funds vitiated the government’s payment obligation. Reversing the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the statute contained an unambiguous payment mandate, which was not repealed or otherwise suspended by Congress’ failure to make appropriations available. While a failure to appropriate funds prevents agencies from making the payment, the failure does not relieve the United States of its obligation to pay. Speaking for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “These holdings reflect a principle as old as the Nation itself: The Government should honor its obligations. Soon after ratification, Alexander Hamilton stressed this insight as a cornerstone of fiscal policy. ‘States,’ he wrote, ‘who observe their engagements . . . are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those . . . who pursue an opposite conduct.’” C&M partner Steve McBrady called the decision “important” noting that it “cements bedrock principles of fairness into money mandating statute jurisprudence.” Crowell & Moring represented Maine Community Health Options.

On December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Maine Cmty. Health Options et al v. United States (a C&M case), on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Maine, along with two companion cases, sought review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the Affordable Care Act “risk corridors” cases, in which the Court held that while the ACA’s risk corridors program contained a $12.7 billion mandatory payment obligation on the part of the Government, that payment obligation was suspended by appropriations riders that restricted HHS funds available to satisfy the obligation. The Federal Circuit reached this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that the riders did not amend or repeal the statutory payment obligation and even though the health plans had already performed their own reciprocal obligations under the statute. The petitioners sought review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion on several grounds, including (i) that the restriction of funds to an agency via appropriations rider does not extinguish a statutory payment obligation of the United States, and (ii) that a rider that does not by its terms repeal or amend a money-mandating statute cannot impliedly and retroactively extinguish the Government’s payment obligation. “The central question to be decided is whether the government’s failure or refusal to allocate money to pay a debt cancels that debt,” says Kevin Lewis, CEO of Maine Community Health Options. “The government’s argument is that future budgetary language can put a stranglehold on prior federal commitments well after the fact. [I]f left unchecked, this bait and switch tactic will place an increased risk on future dealings with the federal government.” The Maine briefs are linked here, here, and here. 

In Conway v. United States (October 3, 2019), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Colorado HealthOp, in a case of first impression relating to Reinsurance payments owed pursuant to §1341 of the ACA, which HHS had offset against other ACA payments it claimed Colorado HealthOp owed to HHS. The Court decided on the merits that: (i) Section 1341 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Colorado insurance liquidation law applies to prohibit HHS’ unilateral offset of Reinsurance payments to Colorado HealthOp; and (iii) HHS’ “Netting Rule” does not preempt Colorado law. Importantly, the Court held that HHS’s Netting Rule, which explains the method by which HHS would aggregate and offset monies owed by or to different insures under various ACA payment programs, lacks statutory authority and therefore does not preempt state law, and as a result, HHS does not have an offset right in an insurance liquidation proceeding. Analyzing the ACA, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Colorado insurance liquidation statute, and Colorado Supreme Court case law, the Court agreed with Colorado HealthOp that HHS cannot leap-frog claimants with higher priority under the liquidation priority scheme by effectuating an offset. The Court noted that the federal policy expressed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and its application to priority schemes that protect policyholders’ commercial expectations weigh against displacing Colorado’s policyholder-protecting priority scheme with a uniform federal rule of administrative efficiency. The Colorado HealthOp decision is a significant decision regarding the ACA’s Reinsurance program, and the most recent in a string of ACA-related decisions involving C&M (previously discussed here and here).

The DC Bar honors the extraordinary work of individual Sections, pro bono attorneys, law firms, and others whose service to the Bar and the community deserves special recognition. The evening begins with a networking reception in the China Room of the historic Mayflower Hotel from 7 to 7:30 p.m. This general reception is open to all D.C. Bar members and Dinner attendees. Dinner and the awards program will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel.

Credit Default Swaps have been blamed as cause and claimed as victims of the financial crisis. Crowell & Moring are hosting a series of presentations that will explore the litigation, tax, accounting and regulatory aspects of these controversial products. Leading thinkers and practitioners will explain credit derivatives, discuss how the controversy arose over them, and where they are headed in the future.