Although investment in the orthopedic sector is not new, private equity investment interest in this specialty area continues to grow. In fact, orthopedics has become one of the leading sectors for private equity investing, just behind cardiology.

In this episode of The Corner Series, McGuireWoods partner Geoff Cockrell speaks with Scott Davis, managing…

FCA-OIG-Advisory-Opinion

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General recently issued Advisory Opinion 23-08, continuing its long-held position that the provision of value-added items and services implicates fraud and abuse laws, including the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the Beneficiary Inducement Civil Monetary Penalty law.

Read on to learn how manufacturers, distributors, and…

Accel-KKR has announced it has invested in Ntracts.

Ntracts, founded in 2007 and based in Chattanooga, Tenn., is a provider of contract lifecycle management solutions for healthcare organizations.

Accel-KKR, based in Menlo Park, Calif., is a technology-focused investment firm. The firm pursues middle-market companies and provides a broad range of capital solutions, including…

Last week, Merck & Co. filed documents with the Supreme Court of New Jersey indicating that it reached a settlement with its “all risk” property insurers in a long-running coverage dispute involving over $1.4 billion in losses stemming from a 2017 NotPetya cyberattack that impacted tens of thousands of Merck computers. The coverage litigation, Merck & Co. v. ACE American Insurance Co., focused on the key question of whether the policies’ “hostile/warlike” exclusion applied to the NotPetya attack, which some intelligence agencies have attributed to Russian government attempts to destabilize Ukraine. The settlement was announced just a few days before the New Jersey Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments during an appeal of the New Jersey state appeals court’s affirmance of a 2021 trial court ruling in Merck’s favor. Merck’s insurers had argued that Merck’s losses were barred by a war exclusion, but the New Jersey trial court found that the exclusion did not apply to malware and cyberattacks and instead was intended to apply only to physical acts of warfare between the armed forces of two or more countries. The terms and the amount of the settlement have not yet been disclosed.