Texas-Based School Chain to Pay Government $3.7 Million for Submitting False Claims for Federal Student Financial Aid Schools Located in Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Oklahoma

ATI Enterprises Inc. will pay the government $3.7 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that it falsely certified compliance with federal student aid programs’ eligibility requirements and submitted claims for ineligible students, the Justice Department announced today.

“Federal financial aid is meant to help students obtain a quality education from an eligible institution, and the Department of Justice is committed to ensuring colleges comply with the rules to make certain that happens,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.

Allegedly, ATI Enterprises knowingly misrepresented to the Texas Workforce Commission and to the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges its job placement statistics to maintain its state licensure and accreditation. To participate in federal student aid programs, as authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title IV), schools must enter into a contract with the Secretary of Education called a Program Participation Agreement, in which they agree to a number of terms. For example, if an institution advertises its job placement rates as a means of attracting students to enroll, it must make available to prospective students its most recent and accurate employment statistics to substantiate the truthfulness of its advertisements. The government alleged that, by misrepresenting its job placement statistics, ATI Enterprises fraudulently maintained its eligibility for federal financial aid under Title IV.

The government further alleged that ATI employees engaged in fraudulent practices to induce students to enroll and maintain their enrollment in the schools. This falsely increased the schools’ enrollment numbers, and consequently, the amount of federal dollars they received at the expense of taxpayers and students, who incurred long-term debt.

“Misuses of the federal student aid system must not be tolerated, for the sake of the taxpayers and of the innocent individuals who are seeking a quality education,” said Sarah R. Saldaña, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, where some of the ATI campuses involved in the lawsuit are located.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida said: “Federal financial aid is there to help students attain their dreams and goals, and misuse of these funds to increase corporate profits is unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring that federal student aid is used for the benefit of students.”

The settlement amount will be paid from funds supporting three letters of credit that ATI provided to the Department of Education. In addition to the False Claims Act settlement, the Department of Education will disburse from the letter of credit funds $2 million for student loan refunds in relation to cases students filed against ATI in Texas state courts and other related arbitrations.

“Federal student aid exists so that students can make the dream of a higher education a reality. That’s why misuse in any way of these vital funds cannot be tolerated,” said Kathleen Tighe, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education. “I’m proud of the work of OIG special agents for holding ATI Enterprises accountable and for protecting the integrity of federal education dollars.”

The settlement resolves allegations made in two separate complaints against ATI Enterprises Inc., and related entities filed under the False Claims Act’s qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions, which permit a private individual to file suit for false claims to the government and to share in any recovery. The first complaint, U.S. ex rel. Aldridge, et al. v. ATI Enterprises Inc., et al., was filed in July 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The second complaint, U.S. ex rel. Ramirez-Damon v. ATI Enterprises Inc., was filed in July 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

This matter was investigated by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, and the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel. The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Justice Department Announces Charges Filed Against Two Derivatives Traders in Connection with Multi-Billion Dollar Trading Loss at JPMorgan Chase & Company Defendants Hid More Than Half-a-Billion Dollars in Losses Resulting from Derivatives Trading in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office A Third Trader, Bruno Iksil, Entered a Non-Prosecution Cooperation Agreement

Justice Department Announces Charges Filed Against Two Derivatives Traders in Connection with Multi-Billion Dollar Trading Loss at JPMorgan Chase & Company
Defendants Hid More Than Half-a-Billion Dollars in Losses Resulting from Derivatives Trading in JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office A Third Trader, Bruno Iksil, Entered a Non-Prosecution Cooperation Agreement

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and Assistant Director-in-Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office George Venizelos announced the unsealing of criminal complaints against Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout for their alleged participation in a conspiracy to hide the true extent of losses in a credit derivatives trading portfolio maintained by the Chief Investment Office (CIO) of JPMorgan Chase & Company (JPMorgan).  Martin-Artajo served as a Managing Director and Head of Credit and Equity Trading for the CIO, and Grout was a Vice President and derivatives trader in the CIO.

“Our financial system has been hurt in recent years not just by risky bets gone bad, but also, in some cases, by criminal wrongdoing,” said Attorney General Holder.  “We will not stop pursuing those who violate the public trust and compromise the integrity of our markets. I applaud U.S. Attorney Bharara, his colleagues in the Southern District of New York, and all of our partners on the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force for their longstanding commitment to combating all forms of financial fraud. And I pledge that we will continue to move both fairly and aggressively to bring the perpetrators of financial crimes to justice.”

“As alleged, the defendants, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, deliberately and repeatedly lied about the fair value of billions of dollars in assets on JPMorgan’s books in order to cover up massive losses that mounted month after month at the beginning of 2012, which ultimately led JPMorgan to restate its losses by $660 million,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.   “The defendants’ alleged lies misled investors, regulators, and the public, and they constituted federal crimes.  As has already been conceded, this was not a tempest in a teapot, but rather a perfect storm of individual misconduct and inadequate internal controls.  The difficulty inherent in precisely valuing certain kinds of financial positions does not give people a license to lie or mislead to cover up losses; it does not confer a license to create false books and records or to make false public filings.  And that goes double for handsomely-paid executives at a public company whose actions can roil markets and upend the economy.”

“The complaints tell a story of a group of traders who got in over their heads, and to get out, doubled down on a series of risky positions,” said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Venizelos.  “In the first quarter of 2012, boom turned to bust, as the defendants, concerned about losing control to other traders at the bank, fudged the numbers on their daily book, and in some cases completely made them up.  It brought a whole new meaning to cooking the books.”
In a separate action, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced civil charges against Martin-Artajo and Grout.

According to the allegations in the criminal complaints unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

JPMorgan’s CIO, is a component of the bank’s Corporate/Private Equity line of business, which, according to the bank, exists to manage the bank’s excess deposits – approximately $350 billion in 2012.  Since approximately 2007, the CIO’s investments have included a so-called Synthetic Credit Portfolio (SCP), which consists of indices and tranches of indices of credit default swaps (CDS).  A credit default swap is essentially an insurance contract on an underlying credit risk, such as corporate bonds.  CDS indices are collections of CDSs that are traded as one unit, while CDS tranches are portions of those indices, usually sliced up by riskiness.

Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and according to JPMorgan policy, CDS traders were required to value the securities in their portfolios on a daily basis.  Those values, or “marks,” became part of the bank’s daily books and records.  Because CDS indices and tranches are not traded over an exchange, traders are required to look to various data points in order to value their securities, such as actual transaction prices, price quotations from market makers, and values provided by independent services (such as Totem and MarkIT).   JPMorgan’s accounting policy, which used the same methodology employed by the independent services, provided that the “starting point for the valuation of a derivatives portfolio is mid-market,” meaning the mid-point between the price at which market-makers were willing to buy or sell a security.  Through about January 2012, CIO traders generally marked the securities in the SCP approximately to this mid-point, which they sometimes referred to as the “crude mid.”

The SCP was extremely profitable for JPMorgan – it produced approximately $2 billion in gross revenues since its inception – but in the first quarter of 2012, the SCP began to sustain consistent and considerable losses.  From at least March 2012, Martin-Artajo and Grout conspired to artificially manipulate the SCP marks to disguise those losses.  They did so, among other reasons, to avoid losing control of the SCP to other traders at JPMorgan.

Although Martin-Artajo pressured his traders, including Grout, to “defend the positions” in early 2012 by executing trades at favorable prices, the SCP lost approximately $130 million in January 2012 and approximately $88 million in February 2012.  In March 2012, when the market moved even more aggressively against the CIO’s positions, Martin-Artajo specifically instructed Grout and the head SCP trader, Bruno Iksil (who has entered a non-prosecution agreement), not to report losses in the SCP unless they were tied to some identifiable market event, such as a bankruptcy filing by a company whose bonds were in the CDS index.  Martin-Artajo explained that “New York” – meaning, among others, JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Officer – did not want to see losses attributable to market volatility.

By mid-March 2012, Grout was explicitly and admittedly “not marking at mids.”  He maintained a spreadsheet that kept track of the difference between the price that Grout recorded in JPMorgan’s books and records, on the one hand, and the “crude mids,” on the other.  By March 15, 2012, according to Grout’s spreadsheet, the difference had grown to approximately $292 million.  In a recorded on-line chat the same day, Grout explained that he was trying to keep the marks for most of the SCP’s positions “relatively realistic,” with the marks for one particular security “put aside.”  That is, Grout mispriced that one particular security, of which the SCP held billions of dollars’ worth, by the full $292 million.  The following day, Iksil told Martin-Artajo that the difference had grown to $300 million, and “I reckon we get to 400 [million] difference very soon.”  In a separate conversation, Iksil remarked to Grout that “I don’t know where he [Martin-Artajo] wants to stop, but it’s getting idiotic.”

In the days that followed, Grout at times ignored Iksil’s instructions on how to mark the positions, and instead, followed Martin-Artajo’s mandate to continue to hide the losses.  By March 20, 2012, Iksil insisted that Grout show a significant loss: $40 million for the day.  In a recorded call, Martin-Aartajo excoriated Iksil, finally emphasizing, “I didn’t want to show the P&L [the profit and loss].”  Throughout the remainder of March 2012, while Iksil continued to try to insist that Martin-Artajo acknowledge the reality of the losses, Grout, at Martin-Artajo’s instructions, continued to hide them.  As of March 30, 2012 – the last day of the first quarter of 2012 – Grout continued to fraudulently understate the SCP’s losses.  These incorrect figures in the SCP were not only integrated into JPMorgan’s books and records, but also – as Martin-Artajo and Grout were well aware – into the bank’s quarterly financial filing for the first quarter of 2012 with the SEC.

During the course of the mis-marking scheme carried out by Martin-Artajo and Grout, the CIO’s Valuation Control Group (VCG) was supposed to serve as an independent check on the valuations assigned by traders to the securities that the traders were marking at month-end.  The VCG, however, was effectively only staffed by one person and did not perform any independent review of the valuations.  Instead, the VCG tolerated valuations outside of the bid-offer spread as presented by Martin-Artajo and other CIO traders.

In Aug. 2012, after Martin-Artajo and Grout were stripped of their responsibilities over the SCP and their scheme was discovered, JPMorgan restated its first quarter 2012 earnings, and recognized an additional loss of $660 million in net revenue attributable to the mis-marking of the SCP.  JPMorgan announced that it was restating its earnings because it had lost confidence in the “integrity” of the marks submitted by Grout, at Martin-Artajo’s direction.

Martin-Artajo, 49, a Spanish citizen, and Grout, 35, a French citizen, are charged in one count of conspiracy; one count of falsifying the books and records of JPMorgan; one count of wire fraud; and one count of causing false statements to be made in JPMorgan’s filings with the SEC.  They each face a maximum sentence of five years in prison on the conspiracy count, and 20 years in prison on each of the three remaining counts in the complaints, and a fine of the greater of $5,000,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss as to certain of the offenses.

This case was brought in coordination with President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, on which Mr. Bharara serves as a Co-Chair of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Working Group.  The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.

The case was investigated by the FBI.  The SEC and the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs were also involved.

This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eugene Ingoglia and Matthew L. Schwartz are in charge of the prosecutions.

The charges contained in the complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

“Upstart Start-Up” GeyerGorey LLP Opens Dallas Office

“Rocketing from two to eleven attorneys in eight months, GeyerGorey LLP sports over 200 years of cross-disciplinary prosecutorial experience involving a host of domestic and international industries where each of its attorneys has worked on internal investigations and high stakes cases for an average of more than 20 years.”

For more, click the link below:


Owner of New York Construction Company Indicted for Tax Fraud

The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that Tomas Olazabal, of Fresh Meadows, N.Y., was arrested today following his indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Aug. 8, 2013, on multiple tax crimes.

According to the indictment, Olazabal owned Tupac Construction Corp., a construction company in Fresh Meadows.  As alleged in the indictment, Olazabal used check cashing services to cash a substantial number of checks paid to his construction company for services between 2007 and 2008.  He concealed his check cashing activities from his tax return preparers.  Accordingly, the gross receipts represented by the checks negotiated at the check cashers were not included as gross receipts on the company’s tax returns.

The indictment alleges that Olazabal filed false 2007 and 2008 corporate income tax returns for Tupac. Olazabal faces a potential maximum sentence of six years in prison and a potential fine of up to $500,000.

A trial date has not been scheduled.  An indictment merely alleges that a crime has been committed, and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case was investigated by IRS – Criminal Investigation and is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Mark Kotila and Steve Descano of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.

Law360: GeyerGorey Opens In Dallas With Former DOJ Antitrust Ace

Law360: GeyerGorey Opens In Dallas With Former DOJ Antitrust Ace

By Alex Lawson

Law360, New York (August 07, 2013, 3:34 PM ET) — GeyerGorey LLP established its presence in Texas with a splash this week, securing the services of a former U.S. Department of Justice antitrust prosecutor to open its Dallas office, the firm announced Tuesday.
* * * *
Marshall added that the firm has a strong Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance program that she hopes to be heavily involved in.

While Marshall carries experience across a wide variety of industry sectors, senior partner Hays Gorey Jr. said her work in the energy sector will be of critical importance to the firm’s Texas operations.

“We are thrilled that Joan has decided to join us,” Gorey said. “She adds deep experience with numerous enforcement agencies and complements our experience in key industries like oil and gas exploration, not to mention the fraud piece.”

At DOJ, Marshall gained notoriety for her work in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when she led the Antitrust Division’s bribery prosecutions centering on the construction of the levees surrounding New Orleans. She also served on the agency’s Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force, which was eventually rolled into the broader-reaching Disaster Fraud Task Force.

Firm co-founder Brad Geyer said Marshall’s work in the disaster fraud arena would dovetail nicely with the firm’s existing portfolio.

“We are very involved in servicing the government contractor and the nonprofit and nongovernmental organization community and we are excited to roll in Joan’s disaster fraud experience into our overall product offerings,” Geyer said. “It is also unusual to have career prosecutors in one firm that worked on the highest profile matters on both the criminal and civil worlds.”

Marshall received her law degree from Southern Methodist University and a Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of North Texas.

–Editing by Katherine Rautenberg.

MainJustice.Com “Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm”

Click Link Below:

Former Prosecutor from Shuttered Antitrust Division Office Joins White Collar Firm

Noted Antitrust and Disaster Fraud Prosecutor Joan E. Marshall Joins GeyerGorey LLP

Joan Marshall who prosecuted the worldwide vitamins cartel and brought a series of fraud cases in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, has joined the firm as a partner. Previously, Ms. Marshall was with the US DOJ Antitrust Division in the Dallas Field Office. She is the tenth former DOJ prosecutor to join the new boutique law firm in less than a year.Joan Marshall_4small



PRLog (Press Release) – Aug. 6, 2013 – WASHINGTON, D.C. — GeyerGorey LLP is pleased to announce that Joan E. Marshall, a former Department of Justice prosecutor, has joined the firm as partner. Ms. Marshall will open a new office for the firm, in Dallas, where she will be resident.

Ms. Marshall comes to GeyerGorey from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, where she also served as a prosecutor on the Department’s Disaster Fraud Task Force and its predecessor, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force. While with the Department of Justice, Ms. Marshall supervised numerous multi-agency investigations of bid rigging, price fixing, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, bribery, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Ms. Marshall had the distinction of breaking the Dallas Field Office’s acclaimed vitamins cartel case and helped to devise, structure and carry out what became one of the most comprehensive international investigations and prosecutions of all time, resulting in more than $1 billion in collected criminal fines. She led the Antitrust Division’s bribery prosecutions involving construction of the levees surrounding New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Her experience spans investigations and prosecutions involving numerous industries including wholesale groceries, milk, seafood, medical equipment, oilfield supplies, military moving and storage, road and building construction, and municipal finance.

“We are thrilled that Joan has decided to join us,” said Hays Gorey. “She adds deep experience with numerous enforcement agencies and compliments our experience in key industries like oil and gas exploration, not to mention the fraud piece. Our corporate compliance and competition expertise is a perfect fit in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market, which has the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the United States.”

Ms. Marshall is a frequent speaker on antitrust enforcement and fraud prevention and detection and has developed numerous training programs. She is a recipient of the United States Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General’s Award and certificates of appreciation from the United States Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, and the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Major Procurement Fraud Unit.

Robert Zastrow, who was Verizon’s Assistant General Counsel for 15 years before co-founding the firm in October 2012, added, “Joan’s extensive background and expertise nicely complements our firm’s unique philosophy and enriches our solid bench in the White Collar world.” Co-founder, Brad Geyer added: “We are very involved in servicing the government contractor and the non-profit and non-governmental organization community and we are excited to roll in Joan’s disaster fraud experience into our overall product offerings. It is also unusual to have career prosecutors in one firm that worked on the highest profile matters on both the criminal and civil worlds. Joan will give us a strategic presence in the Dallas market, which is home to companies in the airline, technology, energy, banking, medical and defense contracting sectors.”

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., GeyerGorey LLP specializes in white collar criminal defense, particularly investigations and cases involving allegations of economic crimes, such as violations of the federal antitrust laws (price fixing, bid rigging, territorial and customer allocation agreements), procurement fraud, securities fraud, foreign bribery (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and qui tam (False Claims Act) and other whistleblower actions. The firm also conducts internal investigations of possible criminal conduct and provides advice regarding compliance with U.S. antitrust, anti-bribery and other laws.







Phillip Zane’s Game Theory: Ten Years On

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published his definitive work on game theory which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, when, and how corporations and executive management teams should disclose white collar criminal conduct.

Phillip Zane be the only attorney whose colleagues and clients might expect to see an open book on games and strategy on his desk.

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published The Price Fixer’s Dilemma:  Applying Game Theory to the Decision of Whether to Plead Guilty to Antitrust Crimes, 48 Antitrust Bull. 1 (2003), which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, and when, to settle high-stakes antitrust cases.

Zane’s article strongly suggested that in a number of common situations, pleading guilty (or even seeking the protections of the corporate leniency program) is not always justified.  Zane’s article used a repeated, or iterative, version of the prisoner’s dilemma to demonstrate that pleading guilty was not always the best strategy for antitrust defendants facing criminal prosecution and civil liability in multiple proceedings or jurisdictions.

At the time, a few of the brainier Antitrust Division prosecutors breathed a sigh of relief when the defense bar did not seem to notice and they failed to incorporate Zane’s research into their negotiating strategies.

In 2007, Zane published “An Introduction to Game Theory for Antitrust Lawyers,” which he used in a unit of an antitrust class he taught at George Mason University School of Law. That paper was another milestone on the way to making game theory concepts accessible and useful to the antitrust defense bar.

Zane’s work, which now used game theory to criticize the settlement of the second Microsoft case and the Government’s approach to conscious parallelism, as well as the leniency program, was met with official grumblings within the Antitrust Division.

GeyerGorey LLP was founded on the principle that the chances for achieving the best possible outcome are maximized by having access to multiple, top-notch, cross-disciplinary legal minds that are synced together by an organizational and compensation structure that encourages sharing of ideas and information in client relationships.

As international enforcement agencies sprouted and developed criminal capabilities and as more hybrid matters included prosecutors from US enforcement agency components with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, such as the Antitrust, Criminal, Civil and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice, and the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, it became apparent that Zane’s game-theoretic approach has application in almost every significant decision we could be called upon to make.  Since Zane has joined us we have been working to factor in the increased risks associated with what we call hybrid conduct (conduct that violates more than a single statute).  Our tools of analysis for identifying risks for violations of competition laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-money-laundering laws, and other prohibitions, include sophisticated game-theoretic techniques, as well as, of course, the noses of former seasoned prosecutors, taking into account, each particular client’s tolerance for risk.

To take one example, an internal investigation might show both possible price fixing and bribery of foreign government officials.  How, given the potential for multiple prosecutions, should decisions to defend or cooperate be assessed?  And how might such decisions trigger interest by the Tax Division, the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other regulators.  When should a corporation launch an internal investigation?  When should it make a mandatory disclosure?  What should it disclose and to which agency, in what order?  When should it seek leniency and when should it instead stand silent?  These tools are valuable in the civil context as well:  When should it abandon a proposed merger or instead oppose an enforcement agency’s challenge to a proposed deal?

These are truly the most difficult questions a lawyer advising large corporations is required to address.  We are well positioned to help answer these questions.

North Carolina-Based Trans1 to Pay U.S. $6 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations

Medical device manufacturer TranS1 Inc., now known as Baxano Surgical Inc., has agreed to pay the United States $6 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act that the company caused health care providers to submit false claims to Medicare and other federal health care programs for minimally-invasive spine surgeries, the Justice Department announced today.
“The Justice Department is committed to ensuring that medical device manufacturers follow the law when providing devices to beneficiaries of federal health care programs,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “It is critical that health care providers bill federal health care programs accurately and honestly for the work they perform, and it is imperative that they base their selection of medical devices on the best interests of their patients.”
The United States alleged that TranS1 knowingly caused health care providers to submit claims with incorrect diagnosis or procedure codes for minimally-invasive spine fusion surgeries using Trans1’s AxiaLIF System.  That device was developed as alternative to invasive spine fusion surgeries.  The United States alleges that TranS1 improperly counseled physicians and hospitals to bill for the AxiaLIF System by using incorrect and inaccurate codes intended for more invasive spine fusion surgeries.  The United States alleged that, as a result, health care providers received greater reimbursement than they were entitled to for performing the minimally-invasive AxiaLIF procedures.
The United States further alleged that TranS1 knowingly paid illegal remuneration to certain physicians for participating in speaker programs and consultant meetings intended to induce them to use TranS1 products, in violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C.  § 1320a-7b(b), and thereby caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs.  The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits offering or paying remuneration to induce referrals of items or services covered by federally-funded programs and is intended to ensure that a physician’s medical judgments are not compromised by improper financial incentives and are based solely on the best interests of the patient.
In addition, the United States alleged that TranS1 promoted the sale and use of its AxiaLIF System for uses that were not approved or cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including use in certain procedures to treat complex spine deformity, and which were thus not covered by federal health care programs.     

“A medical device manufacturer violates the law when it advises physicians and hospitals to report the wrong codes to federal health insurance programs in order to increase reimbursement rates,” said Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.  “Health care providers are required to bill federal health care programs truthfully for the work they perform.”
As part of the settlement, TranS1 has agreed to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.  That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.
“Using kickbacks to encourage health providers to make false payment claims will not be tolerated,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  “TranS1’s agreement to now comply with government health laws is an important step.”
The civil settlement resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and obtain a portion of the government’s recovery.  The civil lawsuit was filed in the District of Maryland and is captioned United States ex rel. Kevin Ryan v. TranS1, Inc.  As part of today’s resolution, Mr. Ryan will receive $1,020,000 from the settlement.
This resolution is part of the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and another step for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in May 2009.  The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation.  One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover more than $10.7 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.  The Justice Department’s total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 are over $14.7 billion.
The settlement with TranS1 was the result of a coordinated effort among the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland; the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division; the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General; the Department of Defense, Office of the Inspector General; and the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General.


The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.