Medicare and Medicaid Fraud
Caremark lawsuit funding is a program started by Caremark Corporation. The company was founded by two former VP attorneys who believed that all plaintiffs should be compensated for their losses and deserved a share of the profits from the market. As we all know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and have the right to sue for their rights. They have also ruled that corporations can be held responsible for negligent actions by their directors.
The crux of the matter is that shareholders can now be sued by their own directors.
If a corporation allows its directors to go on strike and not pay workers, or if it ignores the needs of its workforce, or if it does not properly compensate its injured employees, or if it does not provide adequate compensation in the form of workers compensation, then those directors have committed fraud upon shareholders. This means that if they do not properly commit fraud or make reasonable attempts to mitigate their damages, then they can still be held responsible for their acts. In other words, the claim now rests on negligence.
Caremark lawsuit funding is an attempt by shareholders to hold corporate directors accountable for their fiduciary duties.
There are three ways to hold corporate directors accountable: liability, performance, and audit. It is generally agreed upon by most courts that liability is the least intrusive form of corporate governance. Most courts prefer performance as the most intrusive form of governance. Corporate directors are held responsible for the proper performance of the company.
Caremark lawsuit funding can be used to defend against negligence and/or fraud by directors.
If a plaintiff files a lawsuit against a corporation, that lawsuit must be brought within one year of the commission of the alleged wrongful act or, if it is more than one year after the commission, that lawsuit must be brought within three years of the commission. Once the lawsuit is brought, it must be maintained exclusively by the defendant until the case is resolved. The complaint in this case would typically allege the following: A number of caremark corporations filed suits against numerous independent distributors for breach of contracts, fraud, and negligence. At the time of the alleged violation, one of the directors of caremark corporation detected an error by a distributor and made a notation in the company’s book of accounts; that director then complained to another higher-level director of caremark corporation about the discrepancy, who allegedly responded by firing the alleged perpetrator and bringing the matter to the attention of the general board of directors.
In its answer, caremark corporation asserts that it does not maintain a list of its own directors, and has no notice or record of any such list.
A general board of directors consists of a president, a vice president, and a board of directors. In its answer, caremark corporation contends that the general board of directors did not have knowledge of the existence or absence of any such list, either because it was not required by law, or because the general board did not maintain such a list.
The Caremark lawsuit and the current DefyICO lawsuit highlight an important aspect of the current laws surrounding Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
According to the current laws, a party who is the victim of fraudulent billing violations can recover damages through two possible routes. If the victim is successful in obtaining damages from the insurer, the insured individual may be able to recover direct losses, which are the actual out-of-pocket expenses the defendant incurred as a result of the fraudulent billing. Alternatively, if the defendant prevails in the suit, he must reimburse the insurer. Such rules and regulations have led to the increased number of qui tam lawsuits over the past few years.
