XML 29 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company is involved from time to time in various disputes, claims and legal actions, including class actions and other litigation, including the matters described below, arising in the ordinary course of business. Such actions may include allegations of negligence, product or professional liability or other legal claims, and could involve claims for substantial compensatory and punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amount of damages. The Company is also involved, from time to time, in investigations by governmental agencies regarding the Company's business which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. In addition, certain federal and state statutes, including the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, allow private individuals to bring lawsuits against healthcare companies on behalf of the government or private payors. The Company is involved, and has received subpoenas, from time to time, related to billing or other practices based on the False Claims Act or other federal and state statutes, regulations or other laws. The Company intends to vigorously defend its current litigation matters, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company assesses legal contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. When evaluating legal contingencies, the Company may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the proceedings may be in early stages, there may be uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, there may be significant factual issues to be resolved, and there may be complex or novel legal theories to be presented. In addition, damages may not be specified or the damage amounts claimed may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and therefore, such amounts are not a reliable indicator of potential liability. As of June 30, 2022, the Company has not recorded any accrual for loss contingencies associated with legal proceedings or other matters or determined that an unfavorable outcome is probable and reasonably estimable in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of legal proceedings or other matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Qui Tam Lawsuit As previously disclosed, on April 1, 2022, the Company settled a qui tam lawsuit against CBI and the Company. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay a total of $45.25 million to the United States and the State of California and $2.75 million to STF, LLC's (the "Relator") counsel. On April 7, 2022, the Company paid the settlement amounts in full. The Relator agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice as to the Relator and fully released all claims against the defendants and their affiliates, directors, officers, and employees. The State of California agreed to the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice as to the State of California and released the defendants from any claims submitted to the State’s Medicaid program or under the CIFPA as a result of certain alleged conduct. The United States Department of Justice approved the settlement of federal claims, including dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice as to the United States. The settlement agreements contain no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility on the part of the defendants. The Company expressly denies any and all liability for claims alleged in the lawsuit. On May 4, 2022, the qui tam lawsuit was formally dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Securities Class Action On September 27, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against the Company, its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee (the “Defendants”). On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which added the Company's former Executive Vice President of Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional Defendant. This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and acquisitions. The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs and fees. On March 16, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 1, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. Stockholder Derivative Actions On August 9, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, its Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee, its former Executive Vice President of Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, and certain of its current and former directors, Lawrence C. Best, Walter Gilbert, John T. Henderson, Heiner Dreismann, Dennis Langer, Lee N. Newcomer, S. Louise Phanstiel, and Colleen F. Reitan (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company, as nominal defendant. The complaint is premised upon similar allegations as set forth in the securities class action, including that the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations. The plaintiff, Donna Hickock, asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the Individual Defendants and seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages allegedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches, or disgorgement or restitution, from each of the Individual Defendants, plus interest. Plaintiff Hickock also seeks legal and other costs and fees relating to this action. On November 19, 2021, this action was stayed by the Delaware Court of Chancery pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuit. On January 18, 2022, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Individual Defendants, and the Company, as nominal defendant. The action is premised upon similar allegations as set forth in the securities class action and the Hickock stockholder derivative action. The plaintiff, Esther Kogus, asserts that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and also asserts unjust enrichment and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty claims against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiff Kogus seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages allegedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches and claims, and restitution from the Individual Defendants. On behalf of herself, plaintiff Kogus seeks legal and other costs and fees relating to this action. On March 3, 2022, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Hickock and Kogus derivative actions and stayed the consolidated action. On September 17, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court in the District of Delaware against the Individual Defendants, and the Company, as nominal defendant. The action is premised upon similar allegations as set forth in the securities class action and Hickock stockholder derivative action. The plaintiff, Karen Marcey, asserts that the Individual Defendants violated U.S. securities laws and breached their fiduciary duties, and also asserts unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets and insider trading claims against all or some of the Individual Defendants. Plaintiff Marcey seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages allegedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged violations and restitution from the Individual Defendants, plus interest and, on behalf of herself, legal and other costs and fees relating to this action. On January 4, 2022, this action was stayed by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pending the resolution of the securities class action lawsuit. Other Legal Matters On February 3, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California by Ashley Carroll. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company made false statements about the accuracy of its Prequel prenatal screening test. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On April 1, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On May 2, 2022, the plaintiff amended her complaint. On June 2, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2022, the United States District Court in the Northern District of California granted and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. As part of the court's order, plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. From time to time, the Company receives recoupment requests from third-party payors for alleged overpayments. The Company disagrees with the contentions of the pending requests or has recorded an estimated reserve for the alleged overpayments.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration