5 ms·

>That means some patients received erroneous results that might have thrown off health decisions made with their doctors. Put them in jail.

wl 10y ago
I don't think all the money they've raised so far is sufficient to settle all the claims that will be made against them. The company will not ever be worth enough to settle those claims. In a just world, their assets would already be frozen.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > In a just world, their assets would already be frozen. Who would one contact in the federal government to ensure the right folks were looking into this?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Shouldn't CMS be doing that? The article mentions CMS threatening to revoke their license, it seems like they would be inviting in a law enforcement investigation if they felt it was warranted.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    Unfortunately, it seems unlikely there's a public and open tip-line for general corporate malfeasance (that anyone's paying attention to anyhow). Fortunately, I think the feds are already on the case.
    - interurban 10y ago
      There are links on the SEC's and FTC's homepages for filing complaints, reporting antitrust violations, submitting tips, and reporting identity theft. There are probably more but I only spent about 30 seconds looking.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    I'd be shocked if they weren't. But the Feds like it when private suits do the heavy lifting first, and they cruise in and take a quick victory. Civil plaintiffs have broad discovery powers (pretty much going to be able to read all the important insiders emails about the company) that the Feds lack.
- hackaflocka 10y ago
  They have very very few assets. The $9 billion valuation is a paper valuation that can vanish in one night.
  - scurvy 10y ago
    You can pierce the corporate veil if there is willfull and intentional fraud. Doesn't always happen, but it's possible.
    - bwilliams18 10y ago
      And what, compensate people with the stock of the company that was found to be willfully and intentionally defrauding them?
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        No, compensate people with the money of the stockholders. That's what piercing the veil means: culpable stockholders assets are no longer protected from liability.
        gohrt 10y ago
        piercing the veil usually applies to manager-owners, like S-corps. If I invest in a corporation and the managers do something horrible, the managers could potentially be reached through the veil, but not the stockholders -- their only involvement was handing over money, so they had no wrongdoing. Now, investors who are also decision-makers on the Board or maangement, that's another story.
        PeterisP 10y ago
        It requires that the particular stockholders be actually culpable and involved in the fraud - fraud done by non-owning management would not allow to capture funds of non-managing investors.
        bwilliams18 10y ago
        What I'm saying is the culpable stockholders (Holmes being the primary one) have few assets.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

wl 10y ago

I don't think all the money they've raised so far is sufficient to settle all the claims that will be made against them. The company will not ever be worth enough to settle those claims. In a just world, their assets would already be frozen.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> In a just world, their assets would already be frozen. Who would one contact in the federal government to ensure the right folks were looking into this?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Shouldn't CMS be doing that? The article mentions CMS threatening to revoke their license, it seems like they would be inviting in a law enforcement investigation if they felt it was warranted.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  Unfortunately, it seems unlikely there's a public and open tip-line for general corporate malfeasance (that anyone's paying attention to anyhow). Fortunately, I think the feds are already on the case.
  - interurban 10y ago
    There are links on the SEC's and FTC's homepages for filing complaints, reporting antitrust violations, submitting tips, and reporting identity theft. There are probably more but I only spent about 30 seconds looking.
- rhino369 10y ago
  I'd be shocked if they weren't. But the Feds like it when private suits do the heavy lifting first, and they cruise in and take a quick victory. Civil plaintiffs have broad discovery powers (pretty much going to be able to read all the important insiders emails about the company) that the Feds lack.
hackaflocka 10y ago
They have very very few assets. The $9 billion valuation is a paper valuation that can vanish in one night.
- scurvy 10y ago
  You can pierce the corporate veil if there is willfull and intentional fraud. Doesn't always happen, but it's possible.
  - bwilliams18 10y ago
    And what, compensate people with the stock of the company that was found to be willfully and intentionally defrauding them?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      No, compensate people with the money of the stockholders. That's what piercing the veil means: culpable stockholders assets are no longer protected from liability.
      - gohrt 10y ago
        piercing the veil usually applies to manager-owners, like S-corps. If I invest in a corporation and the managers do something horrible, the managers could potentially be reached through the veil, but not the stockholders -- their only involvement was handing over money, so they had no wrongdoing. Now, investors who are also decision-makers on the Board or maangement, that's another story.
      - PeterisP 10y ago
        It requires that the particular stockholders be actually culpable and involved in the fraud - fraud done by non-owning management would not allow to capture funds of non-managing investors.
      - bwilliams18 10y ago
        What I'm saying is the culpable stockholders (Holmes being the primary one) have few assets.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]