XML 35 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 11. 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 federal 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 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. Desert Hills From October 2018 to August 2020, the Company, its subsidiary Youth and Family Centered Services of New Mexico (“Desert Hills”), and FamilyWorks, a not-for-profit treatment foster care program to which Desert Hills provided management services, including day-to-day administration of the program, via a management services agreement, were among a number of defendants named in five lawsuits (collectively, the “Desert Hills Litigation”) filed in New Mexico State District Court (the “District Court”). These lawsuits each related to abuse by a foster parent, Clarence Garcia, that occurred in foster homes where FamilyWorks had placed children. In 2021, the Company finalized out-of-court settlements for two of the five cases for amounts covered under the Company’s professional liability insurance: Dorsey, as Guardian ad Litem of M.R. v. Clarence Garcia, et al. (the “M.R. case”), and Higgins, as Guardian ad Litem of J.H. v. Clarence Garcia, et al (the “J.H. case”). While the plaintiffs in those two cases had claims pending against FamilyWorks, and FamilyWorks had raised claims or potential claims against the Company, the parties in each of those cases finalized settlements that resolved all claims between FamilyWorks and the Company. The District Court approved the settlement in the J.H. case on June 10, 2024 and the settlement in the M.R. case on August 12, 2024. On July 7, 2023, in connection with one of the lawsuits in the Desert Hills Litigation styled Inman v. Garcia, et al., Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00136 (the “Inman Litigation”), a jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $80.0 million and punitive damages of $405.0 million. This award far exceeded the Company’s reasonable expectation based on the previously resolved complaints and far exceeded any precedent for comparable cases. On October 30, 2023, the Company and Desert Hills entered into settlement agreements in connection with the Inman Litigation, as well as two other related cases – Rael v. Garcia, et al., Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00135 and Endicott-Quinones v. Garcia, et al., Case No. D-117-CV-2019-00137 (together with the Inman Litigation, the “Cases”). The settlement agreements for the Cases were approved by the District Court in December 2023 and fully resolve each of the Cases with no admission of liability or wrongdoing by either the Company or Desert Hills. On January 19, 2024, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company paid an aggregate amount of $400.0 million in exchange for the release and discharge of all claims arising from, relating to, concerning or with respect to all harm, injuries or damages asserted in the Cases or that may be asserted in the future by the plaintiffs in the Cases. On January 30, 2024, a sixth lawsuit styled CNRAG, Inc. as Legal Guardian of A.C. v. Garcia et al., No. D-117-CV-2024-00045 was filed in the District Court alleging similar claims as the previous five lawsuits in the Desert Hills Litigation. The ward in this sixth lawsuit was referenced in prior criminal charges against Garcia in January 2019; however, prior to this lawsuit, neither the ward nor guardian made contact with the Company about a possible claim. The Company determined that a lawsuit from this plaintiff was unlikely because no claims had ever been asserted and the statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff’s allegations assert certain claims, which, if true, may toll the statute of limitations. At this time, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of the ultimate liability, if any, in connection with this sixth lawsuit. No additional victims are referenced in the prior criminal charges against Garcia. Securities Litigation 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 is 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. On September 30, 2022, the court entered an order certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company between April 30, 2014 and November 15, 2018. On October 16, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled Kachrodia v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01238, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 28, 2020 and September 26, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 21, 2024, an amended putative class action complaint was filed, asserting the same claims but expanding the proposed class period to October 18, 2024. On October 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled Dyar v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01300, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 28, 2020 and October 18, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 3, 2024, the Kachrodia and Dyar cases were consolidated. On December 10, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain former and current officers in the lawsuit styled City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters Retirement System v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01447, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February 8, 2020 and October 30, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A joint motion is pending to consolidate the City of Fort Lauderdale case with the Kachrodia and Dyar cases. At this time, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of the ultimate liability, if any, in connection with these cases. Derivative Actions 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. 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 22, 2021, the court entered an order 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-NAC, 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. On February 24, 2021, a purported stockholder filed a fourth derivative action on behalf of the Company against former and current officers and directors in the lawsuit styled Solak v. Jacobs, et al., Case No. 2021-0163-NAC, which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and insider selling. On February 14, 2025, 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 Kachrodia v. Osteen, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00172, 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 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. At this time, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the amount or range of the ultimate liability, if any, in connection with these derivative actions. Government Investigation In the fall of 2017, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the “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. In June 2023, the State of Nevada issued a subpoena relating to one of the same facilities as part of the same investigation. The government’s investigation of each of these facilities (collectively, the “2017 OIG/DOJ Investigation”) 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. On September 23, 2024, the Company entered into a civil settlement agreement with the federal government (the “2017 OIG/DOJ Settlement Agreement”), which fully resolved the 2017 OIG/DOJ Investigation with no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. During the year ended December 31 2024, pursuant to the 2017 OIG/DOJ Settlement Agreement, the Company paid $19.9 million, plus interest, to the federal government and four states that participated in the 2017 OIG/DOJ Investigation in exchange for the release and discharge of any civil or administrative monetary claims arising from the 2017 OIG/DOJ Investigation. In September 2024, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “W.D.Mo.”), issued by attorneys from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ Criminal Division”), related to the Company’s acute care service line and related admissions, length of stay and billing practices. In addition, Lakeland Hospital Acquisition, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, also received a grand jury subpoena from W.D.Mo. on the same day regarding similar subject matter. The Company had also received requests in September 2024 for information on similar subject matter from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which were withdrawn in the same month. The investigation is being led by attorneys from the DOJ Criminal Division. The DOJ Criminal Division withdrew its subpoenas in October 2024, then re-issued subpoenas regarding the same subject matter in December 2024. The DOJ Criminal Division is leading and coordinating the efforts from a number of federal agencies and departments investigating such issues, any of which might later make their own requests for information. The Company has also received subpoenas from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) requesting similar information as well as information relating to the CTC service line. The Company is currently conducting a comprehensive internal investigation using external advisors, but, at this time, no findings or conclusions have been made. The Company is fully cooperating with authorities, including active engagement with the DOJ Criminal Division and the SEC. At this time, the Company cannot speculate on whether the outcome of these investigations will have any impact on its business or operations and cannot reasonably estimate the amount or range of the ultimate liability, if any, in connection with these investigations. Certain members of the United States Congress have requested, and such members or other members may in the future request, information from or about the Company related to, among other things, the Company’s admissions, length of stay, billing practices, and opioid treatment programs. The Company intends to cooperate with any such request. At this time, the Company cannot speculate on the outcome or duration of any such inquiries.

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://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 6: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration