Doctors: Partnership Merger Deal Will Turn Us Into 'Indentured Servants'
On Dec. 19, 2017, a group of New York physicians filed a verified complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court of the state of New York County of Westchester, challenging their partnership's merger with a large hospital practice. The physicians challenging the merger claim that the deal will reduce them to “indentured servants.”
March 01, 2018 at 01:23 PM
6 minute read
On Dec. 19, 2017, a group of New York physicians filed a verified complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court of the state of New York County of Westchester, challenging their partnership's merger with a large hospital practice. The physicians challenging the merger claim that the deal will reduce them to “indentured servants.”
Middletown, New York-based Crystal Run Healthcare LLP (Crystal Run Healthcare) entered into a merger agreement with Bronx, New York-based entity, Montefiore Medical Center to create a new entity named Crystal Run Healthcare Physicians LLP. The merger agreement states that the transaction would become effective as of Jan. 1, 2018 and all physician partners of Crystal Run Healthcare are required to sign new employment agreements with the newly created entity. Crystal Run Healthcare is a limited partnership entity consisting of 133 physician partners. Nine of the 133 physician partners dissented and disagreed with the Montefiore Medical Center merger. The nine dissenting doctors claim in their verified complaint that the merger is not in their best interests because the physicians were required to sign new employment agreements with Montefiore Medical Center which demoted them from partners to employees. The nine dissenting doctors further assert that the Montefiore Medical Center employment agreement contains highly unfavorable terms and “draconian noncompete clauses.” The dissenting doctors claim that the new employment agreement forces them to become “indentured servants” to Montefiore Medical Center.
Currently, the nine dissenting physicians are parties to a partnership agreement with Crystal Run Healthcare. The partnership agreement states that upon the occurrence of a “terminating event” (defined as the expulsion of any partner, with or without cause), the terminated partner shall be entitled to a redemption payout equal to the amount of the physician's capital contribution account plus 85 percent of the physician's residual collections. The partnership agreement further states that upon the occurrence of a “liquidating event” (defined as an event where two-thirds of the partners, with concurrence of the management committee, elect to dissolve Crystal Run Healthcare as a partnership upon the happening of an event that makes it unlawful or impossible to carry on the business of the partnership), the business shall be wound up and the net value of Crystal Run Healthcare's assets shall be distributed to the physician partners in accordance with their respective capital account balances. The partnership agreement contains a noncompete clause forbidding a physician from practicing medicine, treating patients or having an equity interest in a medical practice within 15 miles of a Crystal Run Healthcare facility for a period of one year. Pursuant to the partnership agreement, each partner also has the right to inspect, copy, and audit the partnership books and records during normal business hours. The new proposed employment agreement with the new entity, Crystal Run Healthcare Physicians would substantially alter the current terms of the physician's partnership agreement with Crystal Run Healthcare.
The proposed employment agreement would require the physicians to provide three years' notice before resigning from the new entity. The proposed agreement also requires physicians to refer all patients to Montefiore Medical Center for treatment regardless of whether the treating physician believes that is in the patient's best interest. The proposed agreement would also require the physician to move anywhere within the state of New York as the new employer may require. And lastly, the new agreement contains a noncompete clause that prohibits a physician from practicing medicine within 15 miles of any location in which the newly created combination of Crystal Run Healthcare and Montefiore Medical Center provides services for a period of two years.
The verified complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for the redemption of the nine dissenting physicians' interests in Crystal Run Healthcare. The complaint contains seven counts: Declaratory Judgment—Terminating Event; Declaratory Judgment—Liquidating Event; Declaratory Judgment—Noncompete Provisions of Partnership Agreement; Declaratory Judgment—Proposed Employment Agreement Ineffective; Injunctive Relief—Barring Enforcement of Invalid Covenants; Breach of Contract—Redemption of Partnership Interests; and Equitable Relief—Access to Books and Records. The dissenting doctors allege that they are not obligated to enter into the new employment agreement with the new entity, Crystal Run Healthcare Physicians. The dissenting doctors allege that Crystal Run Healthcare's insistence that the physicians enter into the new agreement, and its impending termination of the physician's existing status as a partner, constitute a terminating event under the current partnership agreement. Further, the dissenting doctors contend that Crystal Run Healthcare's cessation of doing business in its current form constitutes a liquidating event under the current partnership agreement which requires a winding up of Crystal Run Healthcare's business and a distribution of its assets to its partner physicians.
Based on the allegations contained in the verified complaint, the merger agreement between Crystal Run Healthcare and Montefiore Medical Center is unusual and appears to breach the physician partners' existing contract with Crystal Run Healthcare. In many situations where a health care entity merges with another, the existing partnership agreements from the original entity contain provisions requiring unanimous consent (or a large “super-majority” vote) for major, business altering events such as a merger or sale. Partnership agreements can also can contain provisions allowing a committee to vote upon major, business altering events; however the committee is required to act in the best interest of the partners as the committee is a fiduciary to the physician partners. In the instant case, it appears that the physician partners did not have a say in the merger with Montefiore Medical Center and that they were essentially blindsided by the transaction. The Crystal Run Healthcare physician partners had the option of resigning if they disapproved of the merger decision, but the resigning physician would lose his or her severance rights, would still be subject to any noncomplete clause from Crystal Run Healthcare's partnership agreement, and would lose his or her malpractice insurance coverage provided by Crystal Run Healthcare.
Health care practices should ensure that sufficient communication and information is provided to physicians, partners, employees, etc. when a practice decides to consider a major, business-altering event such as a merger or sale.
It is also recommended that practice “partnership” documents address matters such as this to minimize the chances that issues like this arise in the future.
To read the Sodha v. Crystal Run Healthcare, Dec. 19, 2017, complaint, visit, http://src.bna.com/vo1.
Vasilios (“Bill”) J. Kalogredis is Chairman of Lamb McErlane's Health Law Department. He represents many medical and dental groups and thousands of individual physicians and dentists.
Kattherine E. LaDow, an associate in the litigation department at the firm, concentrates her practice in the areas of state civil litigation, family law and health law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
Trending Stories
- 1Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 22024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders in 2024
- 4Akin and Simpson Create New Practice Groups With Integrated Teams
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250