XML 43 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.4

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 17. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is, from time to time, subject to various claims, lawsuits, governmental investigations and regulatory actions, including claims for damages for personal injuries, medical malpractice, overpayments, breach of contract, securities law violations, tort and employment related claims. In these actions, plaintiffs request a variety of damages, including, in some instances, punitive and other types of damages that may not be covered by insurance. In addition, healthcare companies are subject to numerous investigations by various governmental agencies. Certain of the Company’s individual facilities have received, and from time to time, other facilities may receive, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, audit requests and other inquiries from, and may be subject to investigation by, federal and state agencies. These investigations can result in repayment obligations, and violations of the False Claims Act can result in substantial monetary penalties and fines, the imposition of a corporate integrity agreement and exclusion from participation in governmental health programs. In addition, the federal False Claims Act permits private parties to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. On April 1, 2019, a consolidated complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00988, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased securities of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. At this time, we are not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in its early stages. On February 21, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Davydov v. Joey A. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00167, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a second related derivative action on behalf of the Company against certain former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Beard v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-0441, which is pending the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider selling. On June 11, 2019, the Davydov and Beard actions were consolidated. On February 16, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation staying the case. On October 23, 2020, a purported stockholder filed a third related derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Pfenning v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2020-0915-JRS, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty. On February 17, 2021, the court entered an order staying the case. At this time, we are not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with this litigation because the cases are in their early stages. On April 25, 2018, plaintiff filed Pence v. Sober Living By the Sea, Inc. - 30-2018-00988742-CU-OE-CXC, Orange County Superior Court (Pence I). On July 13, 2018, plaintiff next filed Pence v. Sober Living by the Sea, Inc.; Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. - 30-2018-01005317-CU-OE-CJC, Orange County Superior Court (Pence II). These cases have now been consolidated before the same judge in the Complex Litigation Department of the Orange County Superior Court. The complaints allege various wage and hour violations under California law on behalf of a putative class of all non-exempt California employees of Acadia and various subsidiaries, going back to April 25, 2014, and on behalf of purportedly aggrieved non-exempt employees under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”). The claims include (1) failure to provide overtime wages; (2); failure to provide minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5); failure to pay wages due at termination; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (7) violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (8) civil penalties under California Labor Code section 2699 (PAGA). During the second quarter of 2020, the Company recorded approximately $4.0 million to transaction-related expenses in the consolidated statements of operations based on the Company’s expected settlement and legal fees. In the fall of 2017, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued subpoenas to three of the Company’s facilities requesting certain documents from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida issued a civil investigative demand to one of the Company’s facilities in December 2017 requesting certain documents from November 2012 to the date of the demand. In April 2019, the OIG issued subpoenas relating to six additional facilities requesting certain documents and information from January 2013 to the date of the subpoenas. The government’s investigation of each of these facilities is focused on claims not eligible for payment because of alleged violations of certain regulatory requirements relating to, among other things, medical necessity, admission eligibility, discharge decisions, length of stay and patient care issues. The Company is cooperating with the government’s investigation but is not able to quantify any potential liability in connection with these investigations.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration