Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Other than as described below, the Company is not presently a party to any material litigation or regulatory proceeding and is not aware of any pending or threatened litigation or regulatory proceeding against the Company which, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows.

On April 13, 2021 and April 19, 2021, respectively, certain purported stockholders of the Company filed two complaints in the Delaware Court of Chancery regarding the Company’s January 15, 2021 recapitalization transaction with TCP-ASC. Both complaints allege that TCP-ASC, Ascension Health (“Ascension”), and TowerBrook Capital Partners (“TowerBrook”) controlled the Company and breached their fiduciary duties by using that alleged control to force the Company to overpay in redeeming TCP-ASC’s preferred stock as part of the recapitalization transaction. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages against TCP-ASC, Ascension, and TowerBrook. The plaintiffs also allege that the Company and TCP-ASC entered into amendments to the Investor Rights Agreement that the plaintiffs contend contains provisions that are void under the Company’s charter, bylaws, and the Delaware General Corporation Law. The cases have since been consolidated into a single action. All defendants have answered the complaint and discovery has commenced.

On February 18, 2022, plaintiffs filed a supplement to their complaint, naming certain additional defendants and asserting additional claims related to the Company’s agreement to acquire Cloudmed, which was announced on January 10, 2022. The additional claims assert that: (i) TCP-ASC, Ascension, and TowerBrook, along with the Company’s directors (“Individual Defendants”), breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to enter into and approving the Cloudmed acquisition, respectively, which plaintiffs claim will perpetuate TCP-ASC’s, Ascension’s, and TowerBrook’s control over the Company and entrench the Individual Defendants by virtue of certain agreements entered into as part of the transaction, including a Second Amended Investor Rights Agreement with TCP-ASC (the “Seconded Amended Investor Rights Agreement”) and an Investor Rights Agreement with Cloudmed (the “Cloudmed Investor Rights Agreement”); and (ii) Cloudmed’s stockholders aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that certain provisions in the Cloudmed Investor Rights Agreement and the Second Amended Investor Rights Agreement are void under the Company’s charter, bylaws, and the Delaware General Corporation law. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all claims against it and intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

In May 2016, the Company was served with a False Claims Act case brought by a former emergency department service associate who worked at a hospital of one of the Company’s customers, MedStar Inc.’s Washington Hospital Center (“WHC”), along with WHC and three other hospitals that were PAS customers and a place holder, John Doe hospital, representing all PAS customers (U.S. ex rel. Graziosi vs. Accretive Health, Inc. et. al.), and seeking money damages, False Claims Act penalties, and plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. The Third Amended Complaint alleges that the Company’s PAS business violates the federal False Claims Act. The case was originally filed under seal in 2013 in the federal district court in Chicago and presented to the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, and the U.S. Attorney declined to intervene. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to all claims in the case and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Both the Company’s and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment were denied in December 2020, and the parties have completed damage and expert discovery. Additional dispositive motions are expected to extend through 2022, with trial, if necessary, in June 2023.