All cases involving Lupin as defendant were settled among the parties, thus terminating the corresponding court actions on December 18, 2020. In relation to the remaining pending cases and the defendant Teva, trial took place for the first complaint between January 19 and 22, 2021. Another patent newly listed in the Orange Book was added to the second complaint on June 23, 2021. Trial is scheduled for the second complaint for June 2022.
On December 17, 2018, FMCH was served with a subpoena under the False Claims Act from the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado (Denver) as part of an investigation of allegations against DaVita, Inc. involving transactions between FMCH and DaVita. The subject transactions include sales and purchases of dialysis facilities, dialysis-related products and pharmaceuticals, including dialysis machines and dialyzers, and contracts for certain administrative services. FMCH is cooperating in the investigation.
On June 28, 2019, certain FMCH subsidiaries filed a complaint against the United States seeking to recover monies owed to them by the United States Department of Defense under the Tricare program, and to preclude Tricare from recouping monies previously paid. Bio-Medical Applications of Georgia, Inc., et al. v. United States, CA 19-947, United States Court of Federal Claims. Tricare provides reimbursement for dialysis treatments and other medical care provided to members of the military services, their dependents and retirees. The litigation challenges unpublished administrative actions by Tricare administrators reducing the rate of compensation paid for dialysis treatments provided to Tricare beneficiaries based on a recasting or “crosswalking” of codes used and followed in invoicing without objection for many years. Tricare administrators have acknowledged the unpublished administrative action and declined to change or abandon it. On July 8, 2020, the U.S. government filed its answer (and confirmed their position). The parties will proceed to discovery. The court has not yet set a date for trial in this matter. FMCH has imposed a constraint on revenue otherwise recognized from the Tricare program that it believes, in consideration of facts currently known, sufficient to account for the risk of this litigation.
On August 21, 2020, FMCH was served with a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts requesting information and documents related to urgent care centers that FMCH owned, operated, or controlled as part of its ChoiceOne and Medspring urgent care operations prior to its divestiture of and exit from that line of business in 2018. The subpoena appears to be related to an ongoing investigation of alleged upcoding in the urgent care industry, which has resulted in certain published settlements under the federal False Claims Act. FMCH is cooperating in the investigation.
On March 25, 2021, FMCH received a grand jury subpoena issued from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The subpoena seeks documents comprising communications between employees of FMCH and DaVita and partially overlaps in content the 2018 Denver subpoena. The Dallas subpoena is part of a separate investigation by the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice into possible employee “no poaching” and similar agreements to refrain from competition and is related to the indictment in United States v. Surgical Care Affiliates, 3:2021-Cr-0011 (N.D. Tex.) and United States v. DaVita, Inc. et al., 1:21-cr00229 (D.Col.). The unnamed co-conspirators described in the Surgical Care Affiliates and DaVita indictments do not include FMCH, the Company, or any of their employees. FMCH is cooperating in the investigation.
From time to time, the Company is a party to or may be threatened with other litigation or arbitration, claims or assessments arising in the ordinary course of its business. Management regularly analyzes current information including, as applicable, the Company’s defenses and insurance coverage and, as necessary, provides accruals for probable liabilities for the eventual disposition of these matters.
The Company, like other health care providers, insurance plans and suppliers, conducts its operations under intense government regulation and scrutiny. It must comply with regulations which relate to or govern the safety and efficacy of medical products and supplies, the marketing and distribution of such products, the operation of manufacturing facilities, laboratories, dialysis clinics and other health care facilities, and environmental and occupational health and safety. With respect to its development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of medical products, if such compliance is not maintained, the Company could be subject to significant adverse regulatory actions by the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities outside the U.S. These regulatory actions could include warning letters or other enforcement notices from the FDA, and/or comparable foreign regulatory authority which may require the Company to expend significant time and resources in order to implement appropriate corrective actions. If the Company does not address matters raised in warning letters or other enforcement notices to the satisfaction of the FDA and/or comparable regulatory authorities outside the U.S., these regulatory authorities could take additional actions, including product recalls, injunctions against the distribution of products or operation of manufacturing plants, civil penalties, seizures of the Company’s products and/or criminal prosecution. FMCH completed remediation efforts with respect to one pending FDA warning letter and is awaiting confirmation as to whether the letter is now closed. The Company must also comply with the laws of the United States, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, the federal Stark Law, the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law and the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as well as other federal and state fraud and abuse laws. Applicable laws or regulations may be amended, or enforcement agencies or courts may make interpretations that differ from the Company's interpretations or the manner in which it conducts its business. Enforcement has become a high priority for the federal government and some states. In addition, the provisions of the False Claims Act authorizing payment of a portion of any recovery to the party bringing the suit encourage private plaintiffs to commence whistleblower actions. By virtue of this regulatory environment, the Company’s business activities and practices are subject to extensive review by regulatory authorities and private parties, and continuing audits, subpoenas, other inquiries, claims and litigation relating to the Company’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations.