Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various claims, other pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising out of the conduct of the Company’s business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews material legal claims against the Company. The Company accrues for the costs of such claims as appropriate and in the exercise of its judgment and experience. However, due to a lack of factual information available to the Company about a claim, or the procedural stage of a claim, it may not be possible for the Company to reasonably assess either the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome of the claim or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss should there be an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, for many of the claims, the Company cannot estimate a range of loss. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial position. 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 May 17, 2013, the Company, along with certain of its former directors and former officers, was named as a defendant in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ( Hughes v. Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating to its March 8, 2013 announcement that the Company would be restating its prior period financial statements, are that its public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false and/or misleading with respect to its revenue recognition and earnings prospects. On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Company’s directors and former directors, other than Mary Tolan. On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted the Company motion to dismiss without prejudice, however, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 23, 2014. On November 10, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. While that motion was still pending, on January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second amended complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the recently issued restatement. On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend, and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. The Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3, 2015. On December 7, 2015, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding to resolve the suit for $3.9 million and filed a notice of settlement with the district court. On March 8, 2016, the district court granted preliminary approval to the settlement, and on June 28, 2016, the district court granted final approval. The settlement payment of $3.9 million was covered by insurance. On February 11, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ( Church v. Accretive Health, Inc .). The primary allegation is that the Company attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On November 24, 2015, the district court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 21, 2015. The appeal was decided July 6, 2016, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case with prejudice, finding that the Company is not a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA. On July 22, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ( Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc .). The primary allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those same statutes. On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on November 30, 2015. Discovery is underway, but on July 15, 2016, the court postponed all deadlines in the case as the parties attempt to finalize a confidential agreement in principle to settle the case. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims, if the settlement in principle is not finalized. In April 2015, the Company was named among other defendants in an employment action brought by a former employee before the Maine Human Rights Commission ("MHRC"), alleging that she was improperly terminated in retaliation for uncovering alleged Medicare fraud. The Company filed its response with the MHRC on May 19, 2015 seeking that the Company be dismissed entirely from the action. On June 23, 2015, the MHRC issued its Notice of Right to Sue and decision to terminate its process with respect to all charges asserted by the former employee. The Plaintiff has filed a parallel qui tam action in the District of Maine ( Worthy v. Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems ) in which she makes the same allegations. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the federal court action, and the case was unsealed in April 2015. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on March 21, 2016. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to both the employment law-related retaliation claim for which the MHRC has granted the Notice of Right to Sue letter and the federal qui tam case, and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcomes are not presently determinable. On June 17, 2015, the Company filed a confidential arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against Salem Hospital for unpaid fees due under the parties’ Accretive Health Services Agreement in an aggregate amount of $9.3 million . On July 31, 2015, Salem Hospital filed its answer, in which it denied the Company’s claims and asserted counterclaims against the Company in the amount of $2.7 million . The outcome is not presently determinable. In May 2016, the Company was served with a False Claims Act case brought by Cherry Graziosi, 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 clients and a place holder, John Doe hospital, representing all PAS clients. The Second 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, was presented to the U.S. Attorney in Chicago twice, and the U.S. Attorneys declined to intervene. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on July 29, 2016. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to all claims in the case, and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable. |