On May 12, President Biden signed an executive order mandating that the federal government significantly improve cybersecurity within its networks and modernize federal cyber defenses. This move follows a series of cyberattacks on private companies and federal government networks over the past year, including a recent incident that resulted in gasoline shortages along the U.S.…

BlackRock Long Term Private Capital (LTPC) has acquired a majority interest in Transaction Data Systems from GTCR, according to a news release.

Transaction Data Systems, based in Earth City, Mo., is a provider of pharmacy software solutions and services. These include Rx30, Computer-Rx, Enhanced Medication Services and Pharm Assess.

BlackRock LTPC, which has…

As previously discussed, on April 3, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a process for inquiries to be submitted to OIG about whether administrative enforcement discretion would be provided for certain arrangements directly connected to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). OIG established this process to provide regulatory flexibility to ensure necessary care responding to COVID-19, particularly with respect to the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and civil monetary penalty (CMP) beneficiary inducement prohibition provisions. OIG responses are publicly available through a frequently asked questions (FAQ) posting on the OIG COVID-19 portal. OIG has continued to update this FAQ since its initial publication, including the most recent inquiry discussed in our April 13 post and also providing guidance on the following question:

What are the implications, under OIG’s administrative sanction authorities, of an ambulance provider or supplier waiving or discounting beneficiary cost-sharing obligations (required by the Medicare program) resulting from ground ambulance services paid for by the Medicare program under a waiver established pursuant to section 1135(b)(9) of the Social Security Act?

OIG responded to the unique context where Medicare will make retroactive ground ambulance payments for certain patients not transported to a local hospital due to COVID-19 by responding in the affirmative that such ambulance providers and suppliers would not need to collect beneficiary cost-sharing payments to receive such Medicare reimbursement. Such retroactive billing was authorized in the American Rescue Plan for the services described below, and the Secretary of HHS utilized this authority to waive certain statutory reimbursement requirements the same day as OIG issued this FAQ.

Plaintiff Surefire Dividend Capital, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed Surefire Dividend Capital, LP v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Financial Services LLC in the Supreme Court of New York for the County of New York on April 15, 2021, claiming at least $46,598,676.84 in money damages, along with its costs and attorneys’ fees.  Specifically, the complaint alleges claims for aiding and abetting fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Financial Services LLC (“ICBC”).

Plaintiff is an entity investor in Broad Reach Capital, LP (“Broad Reach”)—a purported hedge fund allegedly turned Ponzi-scheme ran by Brenda Smith (“Smith”).  The defendant served as the clearing broker for Broad Reach, maintained several accounts on behalf of Broad Reach, and allowed many transfers from the Broad Reach accounts to other accounts controlled by Smith, both internally and externally.

Sixth Street has led an $830 million growth equity investment into Caris Life Sciences, according to a news release.

Caris, based in Irving, Texas, develops molecular profiling assays for oncology that scan DNA, RNA and proteins to reveal a molecular blueprint intended to help physicians and patients make more precise and personalized cancer…

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, in connection with an interlocutory appeal, that the False Claims Act (FCA) anti-retaliation provisions protect relators from post-employment retaliatory conduct.  In United States ex rel. Felten v. William Beaumont Hosp., 993 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2021), the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal…

Partners Group has announced it will acquire Axia Women’s Health from Audax Private Equity.

Axia, based in Vorhees, N.J., is a national women’s healthcare provider. The company provides a platform of non-clinical business and administrative support services to a network of physician practices across the United States. Axia states it has partnered with more…

In United States ex rel. Roshan v. E. Tex. Med. Ctr., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 252092, 2020 WL 8918651 (E.D. Tex. (Nov. 24, 2020)), a Texas federal court partially dismissed a relator’s claim alleging the defendants engaged in various billing and referral practices that violated the False Claims Act (FCA), the Stark Law, and Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). While dismissing certain of the relator’s claims for failure to plead with the requisite particularity, the court allowed the case to proceed on the allegations concerning a single practice purchase compensating the seller for “future referrals” and pressure on the employee relator himself to refer more hospital-based procedures. This case serves as reminder that healthcare providers should always be cautious when discussing patient referrals, particularly when negotiating financial arrangements with physicians.