Good-Bye to 2015!

Wishing You the Best in 2016!

DeKalb Backs Development of GM Factory Site, Awaits Schools Support

By Mark Niesse  
Atlanta Journal and Constitution
December 15, 2015

[The Board of Commissioners Credits its Counsel for Structuring an Intergovernmental Agreement that Provides Adequate Safeguards to Protect the County's Interest. To view the discussion, click here.]

Ambitious plans to rejuvenate a closed-down General Motors factory site cleared a major hurdle Tuesday when the DeKalb County Commission unanimously agreed to invest in the redevelopment effort. 

But significant challenges remain before the 165-acre site, located along the Perimeter near I-85, can be transformed into a vibrant mixed-use area with retail shops, office space, housing and parks. 

Whether the development moves forward depends on the DeKalb school system’s backing. The financing for the project would use expected increases in property tax revenue to pay for $247 million in infrastructure improvements, but the school system hasn’t signed on. 

DeKalb Superintendent Stephen Green said Tuesday he has “serious reservations” about devoting education resources to the Doraville project, known as Assembly. “Our core business is teaching and learning, and routing revenue away from the classroom … is not in the best interest of the children,” Green said. “We are coming into financial stability, and we’re not necessarily willing to take that risk.” 

Green said he’s reluctant to commit public money to speculative development, and similar previous efforts in DeKalb haven’t been successful. He also pointed out that Atlanta Public Schools has struggled with its Beltline development partnership with the city of Atlanta, which has missed payments to the city school system. 

Developers have discussed the potential to relieve student overcrowding by building a school on the site, a proposal that didn’t satisfy Green because he said the school system can’t wait years for new construction. He is considering redistricting proposals that would address overcrowding. 

School board Chairman Melvin Johnson also has said the area needs more immediate relief, and he won’t make a quick decision. 

Supporters of the Assembly development said they’ll work to persuade school board members of the project’s benefit to students and their families. 

Part of the agreement approved by the DeKalb Commission requires construction of affordable housing units. 

“We’re very excited, and now it’s time to get to work, and of course, we have to be working with the school board,” said Doraville Mayor Donna Pittman after the DeKalb Commission’s vote. “It’s a game-changer for the whole city, the whole county, the whole region.” 

City Manager Shawn Gillen said he hopes school officials will come to realize the value of the project. “We can focus our efforts on the school board, talking with them and trying to get them to a comfort level much in the same way as we did the county,” Gillen said. “We’ve got a lot of work to do yet, but this is a major step forward.” 

The DeKalb Commission voted 7-0 to enter into an agreement with the city of Doraville to create a mechanism for public financing known as a tax allocation district, which will fund infrastructure on the site necessary to attract businesses. Those upgrades include a tunnel to the Doraville MARTA station and a street grid. The site preparations would be funded through $247 million in bonds, paid off over time through taxes collected as property values rise. The DeKalb school district would have to provide more than half of that funding. No existing tax money would be used. 

An opponent of the development, former Doraville councilman Tom Hart, told commissioners during their public comment period Tuesday that they should vote it down. “This is purely a publicly funded project,” Hart said. “We’ll call it a pork project because that’s exactly what it is.” 

[With the assistance of Charles Johnson, an attorney with the Atlanta office of Holland & Knight,] the county wrote several protections into its agreement before the vote. The county government won’t support the project financially unless the county school board also gives its consent, according to the agreement. And the county’s inclusion will automatically end in 10 years unless the commission takes another vote to continue its involvement. 

“This development will not occur without the dedication of future tax revenues to improve that site,” said Commissioner Jeff Rader. 

Integral Group bought the site from General Motors for $50 million last year after it had been unoccupied since the plant closed in 2008. Erik Pinckney, an executive for Integral, has said public support is “critical” to create a district where businesses want to locate.

Dine Out With Us in Support of Fisk University!

DINE OUT!

The Atlanta Fisk Club & The Atlanta Friends of Fisk Cordially Invite You to Join Us Meet, Greet and Eat  Agave Restaurant 242 Boulevard SE, Atlanta, GA  30312 Monday, November 16, 2015 5:00 pm - 10:00 pm RSVP to Sheila Smith at shsmith@fisk.edu Don’t forget to bring a Friend! Your support will benefit scholarships for Fisk University!  Fisk University 1000 17th Avenue N. Nashville, TN 37208 (615) 300-5074

In deciding on a Sentence for Tyrone Brooks, Consider His Overall Body of Work.

Any judge who considers an appropriate sentence for Tyrone Brooks should consider his contributions to society.

Throughout our nation’s history, progressive changes have come about in large part because activists have worked outside of official channels to create a climate that is more conducive to those changes.  In the words of Frederick Douglas, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.”

A story is told about Sidney Hillman, who served for a time as head of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union.  After helping Franklin Roosevelt get elected in the Presidential campaign of 1932, Hillman is said to have gone to the White House and presented an ambitious agenda of progressive actions for the new President to take.  President Roosevelt supposedly replied: “Sidney, I agree with everything in your proposal. It is all exactly right.  Now you just go back home and make me do it.” 

Years later, Martin Luther King, Jr. is said to have had a similar conversation with President Lyndon Johnson.  In response to Dr. King’s call for voting rights legislation and for the appointment of more African American officials, President Johnson is said to have challenged Dr. King to essentially “make me do it”.

In more recent times, Representative Tyrone Brooks has played a role similar to that of Sidney Hillman and Martin Luther King.  With little thought for his own personal needs, he has worked outside of official channels to create a climate which made it easier for public officials to do the right thing. This letter provides just two examples.

When I first began practicing law, all of Georgia’s trial court judges were white, and few if any were female, and subsequent progress toward a more representative judiciary was initially very slow.  Through his work with the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the method in which Georgia’s judges were selected, Tyrone Brooks helped to create an environment in which Governors Zell Miller and Roy Barnes were able through the appointment process to make our State’s judiciary (at least for a time) dramatically more representative of the communities that it serves.  The work toward a more representative judiciary continues to this day in our State, and I can personally testify that Representative Brooks remains a key ally.

Another example: For years, the people of Georgia were officially represented by a State Flag that was adopted as part of the State’s historic campaign of “massive resistance” against court-ordered desegregation.  Tyrone Brooks played a key role in raising awareness of the Flag’s sordid history.  It is largely through the efforts of people like Representative Brooks that Georgians now have a much more inclusive Official Symbol that no longer celebrates insurrection or the elevation of one group over another.

I am not too proud to say that I a beneficiary of the work of people like Tyrone Brooks.  Like many of my contemporaries, I have been able to take advantage of opportunities which might not have existed without the work of activists who have opened doors that they themselves never passed through. 

As one considers a sentence for Representative Brooks, consideration should be given to his overall body of work, which on balance has significantly contributed toward making our world a better place

Holland & Knight Diversity Week: Profiles in Excellence

From Holland & Knight's "In the Spotlight"

June 26, 2015

About Charles S. Johnson: Charles is a trial lawyer and counselor. He joined Holland & Knight in 1997.

Tell me how you believe you expand your comfort zone with respect to diversity and inclusion? I’m a product of a segregated environment and, like most of us, I continue to live in an environment that is still characterized by a significant amount of racial and cultural isolation. The workplace is a principal venue for cross-cultural interaction, a place where any level of functional success requires an ability to meet people where they are without forgetting who I am. As an associate, that meant speaking up for myself (through regular and irregular channels) in seeking the amount and kind of work that I felt was necessary to secure appropriate professional development. As a partner, it has meant speaking up for policies and practices that ensure that the firm maximizes its return on investment in all of its diverse talent and doing what I can personally to ensure the equitable allocation of professional development opportunities.

How has expanding your comfort zone impacted or changed you? I am fortunate that, as a younger lawyer, several senior lawyers took an interest in my success, and I have tried to take full advantage of this interest. I remember one senior lawyer in particular, to whom I was not regularly assigned and whose race was not the same as mine, who facilitated a discussion about the kind of work I was doing. It seems so simple now, but it’s important: I took the opportunity which this discussion afforded me to indicate that I wanted more than mere research opportunities, that I wanted the opportunity to manage cases and try them. As a result of this encounter, I was afforded opportunities that might not have come to me otherwise, and the result has been that I have been able to exercise a level of control over the direction of my own professional development.

Did you have any key mentors or people who deeply influenced who you are, what you believe in and what you’re committed to in your work and life? I grew up surrounded by people who had an abiding commitment to social justice, each of whom pursued that commitment in his or her own unique way. It never really occurred to me that there was any other way to approach life. While in college, I got to know Judge Constance Baker Motley and study her career. Through Judge Motley, I got to know John Lewis, who introduced me to Atlanta and to the community of people who in the 1960s were changing the world and who in the 1970s would begin to change Atlanta. My college dean steered me to the law school that Father Robert Drinan was transforming at Boston College, and my law school dean steered me toward the law review and the institutional practice of law. Philip Alston, a senior partner at my first law firm, went out of his way to let me know that his firm valued its service both to the firm’s clients and to the community, both of which were to be pursued with professionalism and integrity.

What is your favorite book/movie? The Arc of Justice by Kevin Boyle. It’s a true story that touches upon so many things that are of interest: race relations in 19th-century Lakeland, Fla.; the history of Wilberforce University and Howard University College of Medicine; the influence of the Klan in early 20th-century Detroit (a city which is home to my wife and several friends and clients); and the role of Clarence Darrow in the first major piece of litigation brought by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. It’s great reading, and I recommend it.

When you are not at work, what would we most likely find you doing? Cycling, working for an accountable and representative judiciary, supporting Bard College and its diverse and wide-ranging initiatives, supporting families affected with sickle cell disease, and communing with my own family.

What are people most surprised to learn about you? I’ve gone through life with a hearing impairment, with total hearing loss in one ear.

ProMedica Decision Enables Aggressive Approach to Hospital Merger Enforcement

From Fierce Hospital Impact

May 20th, 2015

by Charles Johnson

 

In their effort to slow the pace of hospital consolidations, federal regulators have taken a new approach that has led to increased success. The Supreme Court recently declined to review the application of this new approach, suggesting that it will continue to be employed for the foreseeable future, with far-reaching consequences for the healthcare industry.

 

Since the early 1980s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has challenged hospital mergers that it believed to be anticompetitive, often successfully blocking such mergers before they were even consummated.

 

In the late 1990s, however, the FTC lost eight straight hospital merger challenges, either due to the its failure to establish the relevant market, its inability to convince the courts that the predicted anticompetitive effects would ever materialize, or due to a perception that a not-for-profit hospital's conduct is driven only by benign intentions.

In 2002 the FTC announced a "merger retrospective," examining consummated hospital mergers to ascertain their actual effects on competition, after which it emerged with a new approach to merger enforcement. The commission resolved to challenge completed mergers, where the effects were demonstrable, rather than seeking to enjoin mergers before they were completed, and to focus on the bargaining power of each hospital system in its negotiations with managed care organizations (MCOs). This new approach placed the FTC on a path to renewed success, and it opened the doors to additional developments, including private treble-damage class actions.

 

Recent challenges

 

In 2004, the FTC challenged a 2000 merger in the Northern Chicago suburbs between the two-unit Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Highland Park Hospital. There were no other hospitals located within the triangle formed by the three merging hospitals, although each hospital was within close driving distance of numerous other hospitals.

 

An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the merger was unlawful (noting that Evanston's executives had written of their hope that the merger would increase their bargaining power with MCOs, and noting that the post-merger rate increases charged by the merged hospitals exceeded the rate increases for other hospitals in the area). The full commission left the merged firm intact, but it ordered separate negotiating teams to bargain with MCOs, one team for the two original Evanston hospitals and a separate team for Highland Park. After the FTC's decision, a U.S. District Court certified what may be the first private class action in a hospital merger case.

 

Following its Evanston playbook, the FTC in 2011 filed a complaint challenging the 2010 merger of two of the four hospitals in Lucas County, Ohio: ProMedica, a multi-hospital system, and St. Luke's, an independent community hospital. Prior to the merger, ProMedica had the largest share of the general acute care market (46.8 percent), and St. Luke's had the smallest share (11.5 percent). Since 2000, every MCO network included either ProMedica or St. Luke's. The merged system commanded 50 percent of the relevant product market for the so-called "clusters" of primary services (such as hernia surgeries and radiology services) and secondary services (such as hip replacements and bariatric surgery), and 80 percent of the separate "cluster" of obstetrical services (which were excluded from the classification of

 primary services).

 

The ALJ found that the merger resulted in "a tremendous increase in concentration in a market that was already highly concentrated"; that the elimination of competition between ProMedica and St. Luke's would increase ProMedica's bargaining power with MCOs; that the merged entity would be particularly dominant in an area of the county with a high proportion of privately insured patients; and that the merger would thus allow ProMedica unilaterally to increase its prices above a competitive level. The ALJ ultimately determined that the merger did not create sufficient efficiencies to offset its anticompetitive effects.

 

The Supreme Court weights in

 

After the full commission and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ALJ's decision to unwind the merger, ProMedica sought Supreme Court review. ProMedica's lawyers challenged the FTC's use of "cluster" market analysis; emphasized the relative weakness of the acquired hospital; and challenged the analysis of market effects, which combined unilateral effects (i.e., the ability to command monopoly prices) and collaborative effects (the increase in market concentration). On May 1, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision declining to review the case.

 

The Supreme Court's ProMedica decision suggests that the FTC will persist in the new approach to hospital mergers that emerged after its 2002 "merger retrospective." The FTC will target mergers by dominant hospital systems that increase the merged system's bargaining power in negotiations with MCOs, even though this increased bargaining power is a major factor driving the recent consolidation trend. The lack of a pre-merger challenge will bring little comfort to merging systems, especially when a post-merger challenge may be more successful. The specter of private class actions further increases the stakes for those considering hospital system mergers.

 

Charles S. Johnson III is a seasoned trial lawyer with Holland & Knight in Atlanta. Mr. Johnson primarily focuses in the areas of public policy and complex business disputes. He has extensive experience with antitrust litigation, and he previously served as adjunct professor of antitrust law at the University of Georgia Law School.

Supreme Court Limits Protectionism by State Licensing Boards

Boards Comprised of Active Market Participants Are Not Entitled to Immunity from Federal Antitrust Law Unless They Are Actively Supervised by the State.

By Charles S. Johnson, Cody Wiggington and Robert Highsmith

From Holland & Knight Health Care & Life Sciences Alert

March 3, 2015

HIGHLIGHTS:

• A new Supreme Court decision reaffirms the two-part Midcal/Ticor test of state action immunity.
• This Supreme Court decision makes it clear that, if a state delegates its regulatory authority to a specialized board that is dominated by active market participants, antitrust immunity is available only if the state exercises a continuing role in the work of the board and actively supervises the board’s work.
• The Supreme Court held that a state board on which a controlling number of decision-makers are active market participants in the occupation that the board regulates must have active state supervision to invoke Parker immunity.

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state regulatory boards controlled by active market participants not actively supervised by the state are not entitled to state action immunity from federal antitrust law.

In N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners alleging the board's concerted action to exclude non-dentists from the teeth whitening services market in North Carolina constituted an anticompetitive and unfair method of competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. After a series of administrative hearings and appeals, the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Objections to Services by Unlicensed Providers Required Filing a Lawsuit

By way of background, the state has delegated the regulation of dentistry to the board, whose principal duty is to create, administer and enforce a licensing system for dentists. The board's authority with respect to unlicensed persons, however, is limited to filing a lawsuit to enjoin a person from unlawfully practicing dentistry. Under North Carolina law, the board's eight members must be licensed dentists engaged in the active practice of dentistry. They are elected by other licensed dentists in North Carolina, who cast their ballots in elections conducted by the board.

In the early years of providing teeth whitening services in North Carolina, licensed dentists earned substantial fees for the service. Eventually, non-dentists began offering the service at lower prices. The increased competition resulted in dentists complaining to the board about the non-dentists providing teeth whitening services. Notably, most of the complaints focused on the problem with non-dentists offering lower prices – not possible harm to consumers.

In reaction to the complaints, the board issued at least 47 cease and desist letters to non-dentist teeth whitening service providers and product manufacturers, prompted the North Carolina Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners to warn cosmetologists against providing teeth whitening services, and sent letters to mall operators advising them to expel teeth whitening kiosk operators from their premises. As a result of the board’s actions, non-dentists ceased offering teeth whitening services in North Carolina.

Federal Antitrust Laws Are Designed to Promote Competition

During the administrative and court proceedings, the board argued its members were invested by North Carolina with the power of the state and that, as a result, the board's actions were immune from liability under federal antitrust laws.

Once the case was before the Supreme Court, the court noted that federal antitrust laws serve to promote robust competition. Meanwhile, the U.S. federal system empowers the states to pursue their own and the public's welfare. The states need not maintain an environment of unregulated competition. States often need to regulate their economies in ways that may be inconsistent with maintaining such an environment. For example, in some spheres states benefit from limiting competition to advance the public good. For these reasons, the court in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) held the states, when acting in their sovereign capacity, enjoy immunity for anticompetitive conduct under federal antitrust laws. This type of immunity is frequently referred to as Parker or state action immunity. The availability of this immunity has long been measured according to the following formula: A state law or regulatory scheme “cannot be the basis for antitrust immunity unless, first, the State has articulated a clear policy to allow the anticompetitive conduct and, second, the State provides active supervision of [the] anticompetitive conduct.” FTC v. Ticor Title Ins. Co, 504 U.S. 621, 631 (1992) (citing California Liquor Retail Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97, 105 (1980)).

Supreme Court Addresses Active Supervision

However, in Hallie v. Eau Claire, 471 U.S. 34 (1985), the Supreme Court suggested that the requirement of active supervision may in some circumstances be excused. Relying on the Hallie decision, the North Carolina Dental Examination Board did not contend that it was actively supervised and further contended that it was immune even in the absence of such supervision. Rejecting this claim, the court noted a distinction between two different types of state actor:

1. a prototypical state agency that is accountable to the electorate and possesses general regulatory powers but has no price-fixing agenda
2. a specialized board dominated by active market participants

Because the second type of state actor is more akin to a private trade association with regulatory authority, and with economic incentives to restrain competition, the court determined that this type of state actor must be actively supervised.

To satisfy the requirement of active supervision, the court observed that state officials must possess and exercise power to review the particular anticompetitive acts of private parties and disapprove those that fail to accord with state policy. The “mere potential for state supervision is not an adequate substitute for a decision by the State.” Daily involvement by the state in an agency's operations is not required to satisfy the second requirement. It is only important that the state’s involvement provide a “realistic assurance” that the anticompetitive conduct of an actor such as the board “promotes state policy, rather than merely the party's individual interests.” The court accordingly identified three requirements of active supervision:

1. The state supervisor must review the substance of the anticompetitive decision, not merely the procedures followed to produce it.
2. The state supervisor must have the power to veto or modify particular decisions to ensure they accord with state policy.
3. The state supervisor may not itself be an active market participant.

With regard to the board’s argument that entities designated by the states as agencies are exempt from the second requirement, the Supreme Court stated the board’s assertion does not comport with the court's repeated conclusion that the need for supervision turns on the risk that active market participants will pursue their private interests – not on the formal designation given to regulators by states. The Supreme Court also stated active market participants controlling state agencies, like the board, creates the risk that the second requirement was designed to prevent.

The court noted that the board took the anticompetitive actions without active supervision by the state and without state ratification, endorsement, or other approval. With no active supervision by the state, North Carolina state officials may not have been aware that the board concluded teeth whitening constitutes “the practice of dentistry” and that the board sought to prohibit non-dentists from providing such services.

The court, therefore, held that a state board on which a controlling number of decision-makers are active market participants in the occupation that the board regulates must have active state supervision to invoke Parker immunity.

Clear Court Guidance on Retaining Protection of State Action Immunity

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the two-part Midcal/Ticor test of state action immunity. While the court in Hallie had suggested that immunity was available without a showing of active supervision, several decisions after Hallie affirmed the active supervision requirement. See, e.g., Ticor supra; FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013). Rather than overrule Hallie, the court limited its holding by narrowly limiting the circumstances under which the active supervision requirement will be excused.

The Supreme Court established fairly clear guidance as to what regulators must do to retain the protection of state action immunity: If a state delegates its regulatory authority to a specialized board that is dominated by active market participants, the state must exercise a continuing role in the work of the board by actively supervising the board’s work in the manner outlined by the court.

FTC's New Antitrust Strategy: Unwind Completed Hospital Mergers

Fierce exclusive: Antitrust lawyer Charles Johnson discusses agency's latest actions and why hospitals should worry.

By Ron Shinkman
From Fierce Health Finance
May 7, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court this week refused to review a lower court's decision to strike down ProMedica's acquisition of an Ohio hospital, the Toledo Blade reported, and it should serve as a warning to the hospital sector.

"It should be a cautionary tale," Charles Johnson, pictured right, a partner with the law firm of Holland and Knight in Atlanta and an expert in healthcare antitrust law, told FierceHealthFinance in an exclusive interview.

ProMedica's acquisition of St. Luke's Hospital in Maumee, Ohio, was struck down by a federal appeals court last year due to legal actions taken by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which had sued to reverse the deal. When the Supreme Court declined to take action, the lower court's order to unwind the transaction became binding. ProMedica is the dominant healthcare system in the Toledo area.

Johnson noted that the FTC's actions in the ProMedica case are significantly different than what the agency would have done 20 years or so ago. In the past, the FTC would sue to block deals it considered anticompetitive before they were finalized--often meaning that its burden of proof was not only enormous, but often answered with speculation.

Nowadays, the FTC is more likely to allow a deal to be completed before it makes a move. Such watchful waiting tends to bolster any case the FTC may bring, "so you can see what the effect is," of the deal, Johnson said. He cited another example of antitrust watchful waiting: Evanston Northwestern Healthcare's 2000 acquisition of Highland Park Hospital in the Chicago area. The FTC brought an administrative lawsuit five years after the deal was completed, claiming it had caused prices to rise. The health system's management agreed to separate managed care payer contracts in order to keep the merger intact.

Another such deal took place in Idaho, where the FTC recently won an unwinding of St. Luke's Health System's purchase of the Salzer Medical Group. That case could also be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given that mergers and acquisitions in the hospital space will likely continue at a brisk pace, Johnson noted that not all deals will face a probe by the FTC. He said that if a merger would not result in dominance of a service area, the parties will likely escape regulatory scrutiny.

Join us on Sunday, April 26th for Atlanta's Day at the Derby!

　
Advocacy for Action., Inc is primarily dedicated to educating the community about the importance of and how to achieve a diverse and representative judiciary in Georgia.

   

Sunday, April 26, 2015
Aja Restaurant & Bar　
3500 Lenox Rd NE # 100
Atlanta, GA 30326
Gates Open at　3:00PM
Call to Post at　4:00PM

  
 

Please join friends and supporters of Advocacy for Action for the 1st　Atlanta's Day at the Derby.　　Come dressed and ready for an authentic Derby experience complete with real horse racing, betting, and of course a Mint Julep.

Attire: Derby Chic; Hats and Summer Suits encouraged

  

$100.00 Grandstand Admission
$250.00 Grandstand Clubhouse 　
Atlanta's Day at the Derby Sponsorships Start at $500.00

Please　CLICK HERE　to purchase tickets and review sponsorships or call　404-719-4832　to speak to an Advocacy for Action representative.
Paid for by Advocacy for Action Political Action Committee
　
　

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE TICKETS

　　
　
　

Ticket & Sponsorship Opportunities

$100.00 Grandstand Admission Entrance to the Atlanta's Day at the Derby Party Validated Parking in the One Alliance Garage Commemorative Glass Heavy Hors d'oeuvre and Cash Bar	$250.00 Grandstand Clubhouse　 Special Entrance to the Atlanta's Day at the Derby Open Bar & Heavy Hors d'oeuvre in Clubhouse Valet Parking　 Commemorative Glass　 Clubhouse Only Betting Booth Additional Derby Dollars for Betting
$400.00 Horse Owner Naming Rights to the Horse of your choice Included in Horse Owner Raffle　 1 Grandstand Clubhouse Ticket	$750.00 Race Sponsor Naming Rights for the Race of your choice Included in Race Sponsor Raffle 1 Grandstand Clubhouse Ticket
$500.00 Winner's Circle 4 Grandstand Admission Tickets Name listed in Derby Guide	$1000.00 Derby Circle 2 Grandstand Clubhouse Tickets Horse Ownership Name listed in Derby Guide
$1500.00 Preakness Circle 6 Grandstand Clubhouse Tickets 1 Reserved table in the Grandstand with Signage Name listed in Derby Guide	$2500.00 Belmont Circle 6 Grandstand Clubhouse Tickets 1 Reserved table in the Grandstand with Signage Name listed in Derby Guide and Event Banner Horse Ownership Commemorative Sponsor Plaque
$5000.00 Triple Crown Club 8 Grandstand Clubhouse Tickets 1 Reserved table in the Grandstand with Signage Name listed in Derby Guide and Event Banner Horse Ownership Race Sponsor Champagne Table Service　 Commemorative Sponsor Plaque

    

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE TICKETS

Georgia Governor Signs the First Law Permitting Use of Medical Cannabis to Treat Sickle Cell Patients

Nearly 8,000 Georgians suffer from Sickle Cell Disease and the debilitating pain and nausea that often accompany this disease.

HB 1 (a/k/a Haighley's Hope, signed today by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, is the only medical cannabis bill in the country to include Sickle Cell Disease patients among those eligible for treatment. It offers doctors in Georgia another weapon against pain without the many sickening side effects of other drugs.  It is no doubt equally important for the patients who suffer from the pain and seizures that accompany the nine other diseases that are eligible for treatment under HB1.  So the Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia, which I chair, and which is the oldest and only statewide Sickle Cell advocacy organization in the country, is especially pleased to have played a part in the passage of this most important and historic legislation.

We wish to thank a number of champions who have partnered with us to make HB1 a reality: the members of the Georgia General Assembly, the Legislative Black Caucus, Rep. Allen Peake, Sen. Renee Unterman, Rep. Gloria Frazier, Rep. Dee Dawkins-Haigler, Rep. Stacey Abrams, Sickle Cell patients, and the many citizens groups who worked so tirelessly to bring about the passage of this outstanding piece of legislation.

Join the Fight Against One of the World's Most Common Inherited Blood Disorders

Sickle cell disease is one of the most common inherited blood disorders, mostly found in people of African, Hispanic, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern descent and affecting about 100,000 Americans. A newborn is at risk of the disease if both parents are among the 2 million Americans who carry the Sickle Cell Trait. The syndrome causes normal, oval-shaped red blood cells to lose oxygen and collapse into sickle shapes. These mutated cells do not flow smoothly and can get lodged in veins, causing excruciating pain, anemia, severe fatigue, respiratory distress and eventually organ failure and early death.

For forty-four years the Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia has worked continuously to address the needs of Georgia families affected with Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait through testing, counseling, advocacy and support.  We will host a fundraiser for the Foundation in our office tomorrow, January 28.  Details are set forth below.

I hope you will consider joining us in support of this vital community resource.

If you need any additional information beyond that set forth below, please let us know. I hope you will join us on January 28th.

Please join us for a Reception Welcoming
Charles S. Johnson, III
as the New Chair of the
Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia
 Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

5:00 - 7:00 p.m.

  

Offices of Holland & Knight, LLP

1201 West Peachtree Street

One Atlantic Center, Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30309

$250 requested to attend

$500 Bronze - $1,000 Silver - $2,500 Gold - $5,000 Platinum Sponsorship

Click here to R.S.V.P.

For assistance, contact 404-873-3600 or kristin@theoblandergroup.com

Sickle Cell is the most common genetic disorder in the United States and worldwide.

There are over 7,500 Georgians suffering with Sickle Cell Disease

Sickle Cell Disease is associated with extreme pain episodes, and complications can lead to death.

Sickle Cell Disease is most prevalent among African Americans, but not exclusively so.
Sickle Cell Disease is also diagnosed in persons from Africa, South and Central America (especially Panama), Caribbean Islands, Mediterranean countries (such as Turkey, Greece and Italy), India, and Saudi Arabia.

All newborns are tested for Sickle Cell Disease. All adults of child-bearing age should know their sickle status.

The Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia, Inc.
2391 Benjamin E. Mays Jr. Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30311

Visit our Website to Learn More About Us and Like Us on Facebook!

Reception Welcoming the New Chair of the Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia

Join us in supporting a vital community resource.

Forty-three years ago, two prominent Atlanta physicians envisioned the idea of a community based organization focused on the needs of Georgia families affected with Sickle Cell Disease and Sickle Cell Trait.  Since then, the Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia has worked continuously to pursue this mission through testing, counseling, advocacy and support.  Over the years the Foundation's leadership has included a number of distinguished  Georgians, including  Dr. Bruce Shropshire, Juanita Baranco, and Verna Cleveland.

Verna recently stepped down as Chairman of the Board, and I have been asked to succeed here in that role. We will mark that transaction with an event at our office on Wednesday, January 28th. Details are below.  I hope you will join us as we seek to broaden the circle of support and update community stakeholders regarding the Foundation's latest initiatives.

If you need any additional information beyond that set forth below, please let us know. I hope you will join us on January 28th.

 

 

Please joins us for a Reception Welcoming
Charles S. Johnson, III
as the New Chair of the
Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia
 Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

5:00 - 7:00 p.m.

  

Offices of Holland & Knight, LLP

1201 West Peachtree Street

One Atlantic Center, Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA 30309

 

$250 requested to attend

$500 Bronze - $1,000 Silver - $2,500 Gold - $5,000 Platinum Sponsorship

 

 

Click here to R.S.V.P.

For assistance, contact 404-873-3600 or kristin@theoblandergroup.com

Sickle Cell is the most common genetic disorder in the United States and worldwide.

There are over 7,500 Georgians suffering with Sickle Cell Disease

Sickle Cell Disease is associated with extreme pain episodes, and complications can lead to death.

Sickle Cell Disease is most prevalent among African Americans, but not exclusively so.
Sickle Cell Disease is also diagnosed in persons from Africa, South and Central America (especially Panama), Caribbean Islands, Mediterranean countries (such as Turkey, Greece and Italy), India, and Saudi Arabia.

All newborns are tested for Sickle Cell Disease. All adults of child-bearing age should know their sickle status.

The Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia, Inc.
2391 Benjamin E. Mays Jr. Drive
Atlanta, Georgia 30311

Visit our Website to Learn More About Us and Like Us on Facebook!