Samuel Maizel

speaker

228 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Jul 2026 last heard 14 Jul

Samuel Maizel’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

Recordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 1.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

AHLA's Speaking of Health Law · Distressed Health Care Providers—Key Restructuring Issues for 2026 · 14 Jul 2026 podcast

Outside of bankruptcy, the government's argued with virtually uniform success that the Medicare provider agreement is not a contract, but creates a statutory entitlement on behalf of the provider to bill Medicare for treatments provided to Medicare beneficiaries.

Interestingly, inside of bankruptcy for the whole same time period, including when I was there in the 90s, we have argued, the government argued with virtually uniform success that it wasn't a contract.

So outside of bankruptcy, not a contract.

Inside of bankruptcy, it was a contract.

And the government does that because in bankruptcy, a contract to be transferred to a buyer is

It has to be assumed and assigned by the debtor.

And in the context of assumption, the debtor, the seller, the hospital that's selling its assets, for example, has to cure existing defaults, which means it basically has to pay the government everything it owed, which of course, if it could do that, it probably wouldn't be in bankruptcy in the first place.

So it created quite a difficult situation and gave a lot of leverage to the government

in the context of negotiating.

I mean, if you don't know that the bankruptcy court rules, you might think, well, maybe that's okay, right?

That it's not a contract outside of bankruptcy, but something about filing bankruptcy makes it a contract.

That doesn't really work because the rule, Supreme Court precedent bankruptcy code says that the bankruptcy code doesn't define property rights.

It just adopts whatever property rules exist outside of bankruptcy.

It's a case called Butner from the Supreme Court.

And then recently, in another case, the Supreme Court, more specifically with regard to contracts, basically restated the rule as the contracts, which is if it wasn't a contract outside of bankruptcy, it shouldn't be

of contract inside of bankruptcy because the property rules don't change.

But the government got away with this for a long time because their argument was, look, we promised to pay, they promised to perform.

It looks like a contract, obligations on both sides.

And this finally got litigated, honestly, in the context of, and most debtors for 30 years, I mean, there was only one reported decision out of the

text out of a Florida court holding it wasn't a contract.

Showing 61–80 of 228 · page 4 of 12