Sutter agrees to pay $575M, gets compliance monitor in antitrust settlement
By 
Dave Lefort2019-12-23T22:23:00
California announced a settlement with Sutter Health for $575 million to settle claims of anti-competitive behavior brought by the state attorney general as well as a class-action group that included employers and unions.
Related articles
-
ArticleSutter Health pays $30M in lawsuit
Healthcare services provider Sutter Health will pay $30.5 million in a lawsuit filed by a former compliance officer alleging fraud and kickbacks, though Sutter did not admit laibility and points out there was no finding that Sutter violated anti-kickback laws.
-
PremiumCompliance survey shows clawback policies and cooperation tools largely unused
Many companies have strong compliance policies to encourage cooperation with regulators and hold staff accountable, but these policies are rarely used, and cooperation often depends on cost and business benefit, according to a new survey of compliance professionals.
-
ArticleOCC proposes dropping its ‘recovery plan’ requirements for big banks
Less than a year after a new rule required more of the U.S.’s biggest banks to draft “recovery” plans in case of failure, the rule is on its way out.
More from Regulatory Enforcement
-
News BriefCFPB ends probe into Meta’s financial advertising practices
Meta says it is no longer under investigation by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the latest instance of the agency scaling back enforcement under President Donald Trump.
-
News BriefTexas sues Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue over alleged misleading marketing of Tylenol
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued two pharmaceutical companies for ”deceptively marketing Tylenol to pregnant mothers” despite risks linked to autism. The filing came two days before HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared to walk back the claims.
-
News BriefCFPB scraps bad-actor registry, citing cost-benefit issues
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shut down a registry of non-bank financial firms that broke consumer laws. The agency cites the costs being ”not justified by the speculative and unquantified benefits to consumers.”