Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd, et al. was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on May 28, 2021.  The complaint was filed by a Receiver appointed in an action brought by the Commodity Futures Trade Commission (the “CFTC”) alleging the operation of a Ponzi scheme.  The complaint alleges (1) aiding and abetting fraud, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, (3) gross negligence, and (4) simple negligence.  In addition, the complaint seeks to avoid alleged fraudulent transfers received by ATC Brokers Ltd.

Plaintiff is the court appointed Receiver over Oasis International Group, Limited, Oasis Management LLC, and Satellite Holdings Company (the “Oasis Entities”) in an action filed by the CFTC, titled Commodity Futures Trade Commission v. Oasis International Group, Limited, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00886-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2019).  Defendants include: (1) ATC Brokers Ltd., the exchange firm the Ponzi scheme operators used to carry out the scheme; (2) Spotex LLC, the entity that provided the software used to carry out the Ponzi scheme; and (3) an owner of both entity Defendants.

As vaccination rates rise, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to reverberate through 2021. These reverberations also impacted the healthcare fraud and abuse landscape that is the basis of The FCA Insider’s coverage. To-date, 2021 has seen more than three dozen posts on topics ranging from False Claims Act (FCA) court opinions, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, and changes to regulatory guidance under both the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the physician self-referral law (the Stark Law). Yet it is the fraud enforcement related to COVID-19 that we could never have planned to cover when we launched the site but led our coverage these past six months. Halfway through the year, here are six notable themes in FCA litigation and healthcare fraud and abuse covered on The FCA Insider.

Whitmore v. Horwitz was filed in the Central District of California on April 20, 2021, seeking class certification and unspecified civil damages. The complaint alleges fraud by omission, aiding and abetting fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs are a group of investors seeking to represent a class of those who invested in Horwitz’s company, 1inMM Capital, LLC (“1inMM”). The defendants are Zachary Horwitz, 1inMM, and City National Bank (“City National”), the bank that Horwitz and 1inMM used.

H.I.G. Capital has announced it has completed a growth investment in Enseo.

Enseo, based in Plano, Texas, is a provider of customer experience management technology. The company is best known for delivering in guest-room entertainment in hotels. The growth investment will be used to help the company expand into healthcare and other vertical markets.

H.I.G.

This alert is a continuation from a March 3, 2021 post.

On 3rd March 2021, UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a £100 million Taxpayer Protection Taskforce (Taskforce) to scrutinise claims made under Government financial business support schemes designed to help companies and individuals navigate their way through the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In U.S. ex rel. Freedman v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-18753-FLW-ZNQ, 2021 WL 1904735 (D.N.J. May 12, 2021), a New Jersey District Court found that the relator failed to plead a cognizable theory of liability under the FCA based on defendant Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. (“Bayada”) allegedly fraudulent acquisition of a home health agency that subsequently billed Medicare for seemingly legitimate claims.

In 2011, the Ocean County Board of Health (“Ocean County”) began considering whether to sell its home healthcare agency. That fall, Bayada asked George Gilmore, an attorney and local Republican Party chair, to “lobby” on its behalf in its attempt to purchase Ocean County’s home healthcare agency. Gilmore engaged in various efforts to that end, and signed a retention agreement for legal services in March 2012. Additionally, days before Bayada submitted its proposal to Ocean County, Bayada’s then-COO offered Gilmore a “success fee” on top of his retention agreement. Bayada did not inform Ocean County of its contingency fee arrangement with Gilmore, despite the fact that the RFP and New Jersey state regulations prohibit paying lobbyists in that way. Bayada was awarded the contract, despite bidding $500,000 less than the other bidder. Bayada obtained Ocean County’s license in December 2014, enrolled as a Medicare provider in January 2015, and billed approximately $36 million in Medicare claims to the federal government through 2019.

McGuireWoods has long been an avid supporter of the advancement of professional women. As part of our initiative seeking to expand the leadership of women in private equity, we are continuing our series of profiling women leaders in private equity. We are hopeful that this series will serve to inspire other women to pursue their…

Onex Corp. has announced that Onex Partners V will acquire Newport Healthcare.

Newport, based in Newport, R.I., is a provider of healing centers for teens and young adults struggling with primary mental health issues. Founded in 2008, the company’s offerings include residential treatment centers, partial hospitalization programs and intensive outpatient programs.

Onex Partners is…

On June 14, 2021, the Board of the newly-formed California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) held its first public meeting.  The Board had an extensive agenda, covering topics such as the laws affecting the Board and CPPA, initial hiring strategy for the CPPA, policies and practices on delegations of authority and conflicts of interest, establishment of subcommittees of the Board, notice to the Attorney General regarding the assumption of rulemaking under the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), and setting future agenda items and a meeting schedule for the Board.  (As a refresher, when the CPRA passed as a ballot measure last Fall, it established the CPPA as a first-of-its-kind agency solely devoted to the regulation and enforcement of consumer privacy.  The CPPA is tasked with enforcing the CPRA and developing a set of regulations providing guidance for businesses on how to comply with that new law.  For more on the CPRA, please see our post here.)

While the CPPA Board’s June 14 full-day meeting covered a lot of ground, it is clear there is much work to be done for the CPPA to emerge as an independent, fully-functional agency, let alone promulgating regulations in time to meet the CPRA’s July 1, 2022 deadline for final regulations.  Overall, the Board members appeared to be committed to working through these challenges, but acknowledged that they are under a lot of time pressure.