Month: January 2025

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, at the request of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against crude-oil producers XCL Resources Holdings LLC (XCL), Verdun Oil Company II LLC (Verdun) and EP Energy LLC (EP).

The lawsuit alleges that the three companies violated the pre-transaction notification and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 (HSR Act), following Verdun’s $1.4 billion purchase agreement for EP on July 26, 2021. At the time of transaction, Verdun was under common management with XCL.

According to the complaint, the three companies failed to observe a required waiting period following such a large transaction, in which federal agencies can investigate a potential merger before it closes. Instead, EP allowed Verdun and XCL to assume operational and decision-making control over significant aspects of its day-to-day business operations, including a stoppage to EP’s planned well-drilling and development at a time when the U.S. crude-oil market faced significant supply shortages and consumers faced soaring gasoline prices.

Simultaneous to filing its complaint, the department filed a proposed settlement, subject to approval by the court, under which the defendants have agreed to pay a $5.6 million civil penalty to resolve the lawsuit, a record civil penalty for illegal pre-merger coordination in violation of the HSR Act.

Further details about this matter are described in the FTC’s press release issued today, and in the complaint and competitive impact statement.

Consistent with the requirements of the Tunney Act, the proposed settlement, along with the competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement during a 60-day comment period via email to bccompliance@ftc.gov or by post to Maribeth Petrizzi, Special Attorney, United States, c/o Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, CC-8416, Washington, D.C. 20580. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia may approve the proposed settlement upon finding that it is in the public interest.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Two laboratory marketers — Shahram Naghshbandi, of Fort Worth, Texas, and John Bello, of Chesterfield, Virginia; three physicians — Dr. Abbesalom Ghermay, of Plano, Texas; Dr. Daniel Theesfeld, of Longview, Texas; and Dr. James Cook, of Richmond, Virginia; and medical practice owner Troy Belton, of Columbia, South Carolina, and associated entities, have agreed to pay a total of $1,137,914 to resolve False Claims Act allegations they took part in laboratory kickback schemes in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The parties have agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department’s investigations of, and litigation against, other participants in the alleged schemes.

“Monetary inducements to healthcare providers undermine the integrity of taxpayer-funded healthcare programs and can improperly influence healthcare providers’ decision-making,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will continue to hold accountable individuals, as well as companies, who disregard their legal obligations and participate in illegal kickback schemes.”

The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded healthcare programs. The Anti-Kickback Statute is intended to ensure that medical providers’ judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are instead based on the best interests of their patients.

The Anti-Kickback Statute ascribes liability to parties on both sides of an impermissible kickback arrangement. The settlements announced today resolve allegations that laboratory marketers and their companies paid or conspired to pay kickbacks to doctors, and that doctors and their companies received kickbacks in return for laboratory referrals. The alleged kickbacks resulted in the submission of false or fraudulent laboratory testing claims to Medicare in violation of the False Claims Act.

The Marketer Settlements

The settlements announced today resolve allegations that two marketers paid kickbacks in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute to induce healthcare providers to make referrals to laboratories in New Jersey, Florida, Virginia and Texas.

Shahram Naghshbandi agreed to pay $400,000 to resolve allegations that he entered into illegal schemes to pay kickbacks to doctors for laboratory referrals. From August 2018 through July 2022, in return for Naghshbandi and his marketing company arranging for and/or recommending that several healthcare providers order laboratory testing from three clinical laboratories in Kenilworth, New Jersey; Dallas, Texas; and Orlando, Florida, these laboratories allegedly paid commissions to Naghshbandi’s marketing company based on reimbursements from the health care providers’ laboratory testing referrals. To induce these healthcare providers to order testing, Naghshbandi allegedly paid them thousands of dollars in kickbacks disguised as investment distributions from purported management service organizations (MSOs). In addition to the monetary settlement, Naghshbandi has been excluded from federal healthcare programs for 10 years.

John Bello and his marketing company, RiteRx4U LLC, agreed to pay $140,000 to resolve allegations that, from February 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, they paid Dr. James Cook, of Richmond, Virginia, thousands of dollars in kickbacks to induce Dr. Cook to order testing from two clinical laboratories in Kenilworth, New Jersey, and Chester, Virginia. Bello and RiteRx4U allegedly sought to disguise these payments as purported investment returns when they were in fact based on the volume and value of Dr. Cook’s referrals to these laboratories.

The Healthcare Provider Settlements

The settlements announced today also resolve allegations that healthcare providers received kickbacks in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute in return for making referrals to laboratories in New Jersey, Virginia and Texas.

Dr. Abbesalom Ghermay agreed to pay $228,482 to resolve allegations that, from January 2016 to November 2018, he received thousands of dollars in payments from a purported MSO in return for ordering testing from a laboratory in Houston, Texas.

Dr. James Cook and his medical practice, Family Medical Centers, P.C., agreed to pay $206,987 to resolve allegations that, from February 2019 to February 2021, they received thousands of dollars in payments from marketer RiteRx4U LLC in return for ordering testing from two clinical laboratories in Kenilworth, New Jersey, and Chester, Virginia. Cook and his practice allegedly received thousands of dollars in payments from the marketer that were disguised as purported investment returns but in fact were based on the volume and value of Cook’s testing referrals to the two laboratories.

Dr. Daniel Theesfeld and his medical practice, H8 Pain Management Center of Texas PLLC, agreed to pay $99,125 to resolve allegations that, from April 2017 to September 2018, they received thousands of dollars in payments from a purported MSO in return for ordering testing from a laboratory in Houston, Texas.

Advantage Medical Group, an outpatient clinic in Columbia, South Carolina, and its owner, Troy Belton, agreed to pay $63,320 to resolve allegations that from June 2017 to July 2022, they received thousands of dollars in payments from two purported MSOs in return for ordering testing from three laboratories in Kenilworth, New Jersey; Dallas, Texas; and Denton, Texas.

“Kickbacks can harm taxpayer-funded healthcare programs and improperly influence healthcare providers’ medical decisions,” said U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger for the District of New Jersey. “Patients should always be able to rely on their medical professionals making decisions in the patients’ best interest, and not for any monetary reason. We will continue to pursue all those involved in illegal kickback schemes.”

“Individuals and entities that participate in the federal health care system are required to obey the laws meant to preserve the integrity of program funds and the provision of appropriate, quality services to patients,” said Special Agent in Charge Naomi Gruchacz of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG will continue working with law enforcement to investigate parties alleged to have violated the Anti-Kickback Statute.”

The settlements were the result of a coordinated effort between the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, with assistance from HHS-OIG.

Senior Trial Counsel Christopher Terranova of the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kruti Dharia for the District of New Jersey handled the settlements.

The United States has recovered over $53 million relating to conduct involving MSO kickbacks to health care providers, including False Claims Act settlements with 48 physicians. The government’s pursuit of these matters illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement can be reported to HHS at 1-800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

The claims resolved by the settlements are allegations only. There has been no determination of liability.

View the Naghshbandi Settlement here.

View the Bello Settlement here.

View the Cook Settlement here.

View the AMG Settlement here.

View the Theesfeld Settlement here.

View the Ghermay Settlement here.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department today announced the completion of a major effort to modernize the process that federal agencies use to acquire real property. Over the past two years, the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) has collaborated with attorneys throughout the federal government to identify outdated provisions in delegations of authority previously issued by the Justice Department between 1970 and 1991.

As a result of that effort, on Dec. 10, 2024 — pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 3111(b) — Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of ENRD issued 10 revised delegations of title review authority to land-acquiring federal agencies. These revised delegations should reduce the unnecessary duplication of effort by agency and Justice Department staff, promoting government efficiency and saving taxpayer funds.

Before the United States may acquire real property, 40 U.S.C. § 3111 requires that the Attorney General must first determine that the purchase will include sufficient title for the United States to use the property as intended. In 1970, because most land-acquiring agencies already employed legal staff qualified to review title evidence and make that determination, Congress authorized the Justice Department to delegate title review responsibility, allowing agency counsel to approve sufficiency of title on behalf of the Attorney General subject to Justice Department supervision and regulation. The Attorney General, through the Assistant Attorney General, subsequently delegated title review authority to 10 different land-acquiring agencies.

Many provisions of the original delegations are outdated, including references to since-replaced regulations and a now-unnecessary restriction on agency approval of title in certain acquisitions valued at more than $100,000. Additionally, since 1970, Congress has dissolved one affected agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, and administratively transferred another, the United States Coast Guard. The revised delegations address these issues, incorporating the Regulations of the Attorney General Governing the Review and Approval of Title for Federal Land Acquisitions (2016), eliminating the $100,000 limitation on certain acquisitions and identifying the modern version of each relevant agency.

“The revised delegations will enhance the productive working relationship that the Justice Department has always maintained with its agency partners, ensuring that each land acquisition complies with federal law while also promoting government efficiency and the conservation of taxpayer resources,” said Assistant Attorney General Kim. “This was a years-long project that will have a tangible effect on thousands of real property acquisitions by the federal government every year. I want to thank not only the Justice Department attorneys involved in this project, but also those throughout the entire federal government who contributed their ideas, experience, and expertise.”

The following agencies received revised delegations of authority: the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Army, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior, Department of the Navy, Department of Transportation, Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration and the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission.

ENRD’s Land Acquisition Section — including Section Chief Andrew M. Goldfrank, Division Counsel for Title Matters Georgia Garthwaite and Trial Attorney Ben McMurtray — led the effort.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

The Justice Department’s Office for Access to Justice today announced the launch of the Access to Justice Prize, a year-long prize competition that aims to foster innovative solutions to address critical gaps in access to justice across the United States. The inaugural competition will focus on access to justice gaps faced by rural communities across the country, aiming to advance general public awareness about rural access to justice gaps; prompt and support the development of new and innovative solutions; and promote the replication and expansion of strategies that work.

“Through our engagement with courts, justice practitioners, legal aid providers, academic institutions and other organizations across the country, we’ve heard loud and clear that solutions to close the rural justice gap must begin with rural communities themselves,” said Director Rachel Rossi of the Justice Department’s Office for Access to Justice. “Through the Access to Justice Prize competition, we further this approach, empowering those who best know the barriers their communities face to drive the effective solutions that will ensure access to justice for all, regardless of geography.”

Nationwide access to justice barriers are often exacerbated for rural Americans, especially when unique circumstances like long travel times, limited internet access or lack of attorneys are too often overlooked. A 2022 study by the Legal Services Corporation revealed that 77% of low-income rural households experienced at least one civil legal problem in the previous year, with 94% receiving inadequate or no legal help. Additionally, rural criminal justice systems are strained by part-time judges, contract defense counsel and lacking prosecutorial resources. Studies demonstrate that recruitment and retention challenges are increasing for criminal justice careers in rural areas, including for public defenders, prosecutors and law enforcement. And rural courts face rising caseloads, delay, uneven workloads among judges and lack of resources.

The 2025 Access to Justice Prize aims to inspire and support innovative ideas that address these challenges by engaging those closest to the issues — rural courts, practitioners and organizations. Eligible participants are encouraged to submit proposals for any solutions that expand access to justice, including, for example, solutions to:

• Increase access to legal representation, assistance or information;
• Simplify legal processes, systems, forms or language;
• Leverage technology to enhance legal system efficiency;
• Expand access for underserved rural populations, including Tribal communities and individuals with disabilities; and
• Build innovative partnerships to address local justice needs.

More information and additional examples can be found here. The competition will run on a one-year cycle, starting in January 2025, and will feature two judging phases:

1. Finalist Selection: Up to five finalists will receive $5,000 each and then refine their proposals over a six-month phase in preparation to compete for the grand prize.
2. Grand Prize Selection: Finalists will present their solutions at an Access to Justice Showcase, where judges will select the grand prize winner to receive $50,000.

Below is the timeline for the year-long Access to Justice Prize competition cycle:

• Jan. 7: Submissions open
• March 31: Submission deadline
• April 30: Finalists announced
• May 1 – Oct. 31: Refinement Phase
• Early December 2025: Grand Prize Showcase and winner announcement

Applicants are encouraged to visit the Access to Justice Prize website on Challenge.gov to review eligibility requirements, submission guidelines, and resources. The Office for Access to Justice will also present an informational webinar on Feb. 11 at 3:00 PM EST. Applications may be submitted beginning on Jan. 7 and must be received by 11:59 PM EST on March 31.

The Access to Justice Prize competition continues the ongoing work of the Office for Access to Justice to engage with and support rural communities in closing the justice gap. This includes the publication of resources to support rural access to justice; a focus on economic barriers faced by rural communities; and broad engagement with rural-focused court leaders, access to justice commissions, initiatives (including the Kansas Rural Justice Initiative Committee and the Alaska Legal Services Corporation’s Community Justice Workers project), criminal justice practitioners, civil legal aid providers, pro bono volunteers and more.

Entities and organizations are encouraged to also review their eligibility for Justice Department grant funding opportunities that may support rural justice initiatives and programs, including those specifically focused on rural jurisdictions, such as the Rural Program administered by the Office on Violence Against Women and the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative administered by the Office of Justice Programs.