Reflecting its determination to monitor the crypto markets, the Security and Exchange Commission has renamed the Cyber Unit the “Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit” and is nearly doubling its size from  30 to 50 members, according to a May 3 press release from the agency. The additional permanent positions will include investigative staff attorneys, trial

In February 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a qui tam action alleging that the defendant had violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). In its ruling, the court noted that “even some fair-market value payments will qualify as illegal kickbacks.”

Click here to read

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently weighed in on the appropriate causation standard when evaluating whether a claim “result[s] from” a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute sufficient to constitute a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. In U.S. ex rel. Fitzer v. Allergan, Inc., the court adopted a middle of the road approach under which a causal link between the remuneration and the claim is required, but a showing that the remuneration succeeded in producing the prescription is not.

Avista Capital Partners has announced it has closed on the sale of Inform Diagnostics to Fulgent Genetics for approximately $170 million.

Inform Diagnostics, based in Irving, Texas, is an independent pathology laboratory business that has laboratories in Irving, Texas, as well as Boston, New York City and Phoenix.

Fulgent Genetics (NASDAQ: FLGT), based in Temple City,

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Minuskin, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on April 8, 2022, claiming violations of several provisions of the Securities Act and Securities Exchange Act. Specifically, the SEC seeks permanent injunctive relief against all Defendants to prevent future violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties.

The SEC brought this action against Julie Minuskin (“Minuskin”), Dennis DiRicco (“DiRicco”), Thomas Casey (“Casey”), Golden Genesis, Inc. (“Golden Genesis”), and Joshua Stoll (“Stoll”) (collectively “Defendants”).  According to the complaint, Defendant Minuskin created Retire Happy LLC (“Retire Happy”), a Nevada limited liability company, which specialized in self-directed IRAs and provided financial education on how to leverage retirement accounts and create passive income by promoting self-directed retirement accounts. Defendant DiRicco was the Chief Financial Officer and board member of Defendant Golden Genesis and the managing member of non-party Until Tomorrow LLC (“Until Tomorrow”). Defendant Casey is the majority owner, Chief Executive Officer, and board member of Defendant Golden Genesis. Defendant Stoll was an account specialist at Retire Happy.

On April 25, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that it will begin examining nonbank “covered persons” that it has determined pose risks to consumers. What is most striking about the announcement is not that the CFPB will start examining this category of nonbanks — it’s had that authority since its inception — but that

On April 25, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that it will begin examining nonbank “covered persons” that it has determined pose risks to consumers. The CFPB has had this authority since its inception. The Dodd-Frank Act empowered the CFPB to examine this category of nonbanks, which might include fintech firms that are not otherwise subject to the CFPB’s supervision authority, such as social-media websites that offer payment-processing services to consumers. And in 2013, the CFPB adopted a rule for implementing its authority that requires the agency to follow certain procedures in determining whether a company poses risks to consumers.

In Conte v. Kingston NH Operations LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21686, *1, 2022 WL 356753, a New York District court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss an employee’s false claims allegations under the False Claims Act (the “FCA”) and the New York False Claims Act (the “NYFCA”). The case stemmed from allegedly improper patient care and workspace safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the plaintiff brought against a New York nursing home operator under both the FCA and NYFCA. Despite multiple alleged COVID-related deaths and demonstrated care issues that the court acknowledged were present, the court dismissed the case as such allegations were not actionable under these fraud and abuse statutes.