search results for 

30. Commitments and contingent liabilities

Operating leases and rental payments

Fresenius Group’s subsidiaries lease office and manufacturing buildings as well as machinery and equipment under various lease agreements expiring on dates through 2101. Rental expense recorded for operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 was €565 million and €497 million, respectively.

Future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable operating leases for the years subsequent to December 31, 2012 are:

for the fiscal years € in millions
2013 502
2014 434
2015 372
2016 310
2017 297
Thereafter 1,041
Total 2,956

for the fiscal years € in millions
2013 502
2014 434
2015 372
2016 310
2017 297
Thereafter 1,041
Total 2,956

As of December 31, 2012, future investment commitments existed up to the year 2017 from the acquisition contracts for hospitals at projected costs of up to €341 million. Thereof €127 million relates to the year 2013.

Besides the above mentioned contingent liabilities, the amount of other commitments is immaterial.

Legal proceedings

The Fresenius Group is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory and tax audits, investigations and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of its business of providing health care services and products. Legal matters that the Fresenius Group currently deems to be material are described below. For the matters described below in which the Fresenius Group believes a loss is both reasonably possible and estimable, an estimate of the loss or range of loss exposure is provided. For the other matters described below, the Fresenius Group believes that the loss probability is remote and / or the loss or range of possible losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The outcome of litigation and other legal matters is always difficult to predict accurately and outcomes that are not consistent with Fresenius Group’s view of the merits can occur. The Fresenius Group believes that it has valid defenses to the legal matters pending against it and is defending itself vigorously. Nevertheless, it is possible that the resolution of one or more of the legal matters currently pending or threatened could have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations and financial condition.

Commercial litigation

W.R. Grace & Co. lawsuit

Fresenius Medical Care was originally formed as a result of a series of transactions it completed pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated as of February 4, 1996, by and between W.R. Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE (the Merger). At the time of the Merger, a W.R. Grace & Co. subsidiary known as W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilities arising out of product-liability related litigation (including asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), which was W.R. Grace & Co.’s dialysis business prior to the Merger. In connection with the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to indemnify Fresenius Medical Care, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (FMCH), and NMC against all liabilities of W.R. Grace & Co., whether relating to events occurring before or after the Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC’s operations. W.R. Grace & Co. and certain of its subsidiaries filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings) on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against W.R. Grace & Co. and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors’ committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, alleging, among other things that the Merger was a fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and constituted a conspiracy. All such cases have been stayed and transferred to or are pending before the U.S. District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings.

In 2003, Fresenius Medical Care reached agreement with the asbestos creditors’ committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate and W.R. Grace & Co. in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and tax claims against it and other claims related to Fresenius Medical Care that arise out of the bankruptcy of W.R. Grace & Co. Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended (Settlement Agreement), fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and Fresenius Medical Care will receive protection against existing and potential future W.R. Grace & Co. related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and asbestos claims, and indemnification against income tax claims related to the non-NMC members of the W.R. Grace & Co. consolidated tax group upon confirmation of a W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy reorganization plan that contains such provisions. Under the Settlement Agreement, Fresenius Medical Care will pay a total of US$115 million without interest to the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate, or as otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation. No admission of liability has been or will be made. The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District Court. In January and February 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court entered orders confirming the plan of reorganization and the confirmation orders were affirmed by the U.S. District Court on January 31, 2012. Multiple parties have appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the plan of reorganization will not be implemented until the appeals are finally resolved.

Subsequent to the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co. was involved in a multi-step transaction involving Sealed Air Corporation (Sealed Air, formerly known as Grace Holding, Inc.). Fresenius Medical Care is engaged in litigation with Sealed Air to confirm its entitlement to indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses and expenses incurred by Fresenius Medical Care relating to pre-Merger tax liabilities and Merger-related claims. Under the Settlement Agreement, upon final confirmation of a plan of reorganization that satisfies the conditions of Fresenius Medical Care’s payment obligation, this litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Baxter patent dispute “touchscreen interfaces” (1)

On April 4, 2003, FMCH filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, styled Fresenius USA, Inc., et al., v. Baxter International, Inc., et al., Case No. C 03-1431, seeking a declaratory judgment that FMCH does not infringe patents held by Baxter International, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates (Baxter), that the patents are invalid, and that Baxter is without right or authority to threaten or maintain suit against FMCH for alleged infringement of Baxter’s patents. In general, the asserted patents concern the use of touch screen interfaces for hemodialysis machines. Baxter filed counterclaims against FMCH seeking more than US$140 million in monetary damages and injunctive relief, and alleging that FMCH willfully infringed on Baxter’s patents. On July 17, 2006, the court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of FMCH finding all asserted claims of Baxter patents invalid as obvious and / or anticipated in light of prior art.

On February 13, 2007, the court granted Baxter’s motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of FMCH and reinstated the patents and entered judgment of infringement. Following a trial on damages, the court entered judgment on November 6, 2007 in favor of Baxter on a jury award of US$14.3 million. On April 4, 2008, the court denied Baxter’s motion for a new trial, established a royalty payable to Baxter of 10% of the sales price for continuing sales of FMCH’s 2008K hemodialysis machines and 7% of the sales price of related disposables, parts and service beginning November 7, 2007, and enjoined sales of the touchscreen-equipped 2008K machine effective January 1, 2009. Fresenius Medical Care appealed the court’s rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). In October 2008, Fresenius Medical Care completed design modifications to the 2008K machine that eliminate any incremental hemodialysis machine royalty payment exposure under the District Court order. On September 10, 2009, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and determined that the asserted claims in two of the three patents at issue are invalid. As to the third patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision; however, the Court also vacated the injunction and award of damages. These issues were remanded to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the invalidity ruling on most of the claims. As a result, FMCH is no longer required to fund the court-approved escrow account set up to hold the royalty payments ordered by the district court. Funds of US$70 million were contributed to the escrow fund. Upon remand, the district court reduced the post verdict damages award to US$10 million and US$61 million of the escrowed funds was returned to FMCH. In the parallel reexamination of the last surviving patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ruled that the remaining Baxter patent is invalid. On May 17, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s ruling and invalidated the final remaining Baxter patent. Baxter’s request to the Federal Circuit for a rehearing has been denied, and the Federal Circuit has issued a mandate to the USPTO to cancel the claims of the last remaining asserted Baxter HD patent. Baxter has appealed to the Federal Circuit claiming that approximately US$20 million of damages awarded to it by the District Court before the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO ruling constitutes a final judgment hat may be collected. FMCH is opposing this appeal.

Baxter patent dispute “Liberty Cycler”

On August 27, 2012, Baxter filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled Baxter International Inc., et al., v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-06890, alleging that FMCH’s LibertyTM cycler infringes certain U.S. patents that were issued to Baxter between October 2010 and June 2012. Fresenius Medical Care believes it has valid defenses to these claims, and will defend this litigation vigorously.

Product liability litigation

On December 12, 2012, a group of plaintiffs’ counsel filed a petition to form a federal multidistrict litigation and thereby consolidate certain lawsuits alleging wrongful death and personal injury claims against FMCH and its affiliates. The complaints to be consolidated for pre-trial management allege generally that inadequate labeling and warnings for FMCH’s dialysate concentrate products NaturaLyte ® and Granuflo ® caused harm to patients. In addition, a substantial number of similar state court cases have been filed that cannot be formally consolidated with the federal cases. FMCH believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and will defend them vigorously. In one case, the complaint was formally served on Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA and Fresenius Management SE causing both companies to be formally involved in the litigation. Both companies also believe the lawsuits to be without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

Other litigation and potential exposures

Renal Care Group – Class action “acquisition”

Renal Care Group, Inc. (RCG), which Fresenius Medical Care acquired in 2006, is named as a nominal defendant in a complaint originally filed September 13, 2006 in the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District at Nashville styled Indiana State District Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers Pension Fund v. Gary Brukardt et al. Following the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff’s appeal in part, and reversal in part by the appellate court, the cause of action purports to be a class action on behalf of former shareholders of RCG and seeks monetary damages only against the individual former directors of RCG. The individual defendants, however, may have had claims for indemnification and reimbursement of expenses against Fresenius Medical Care. Subject to the approval of the Nashville Chancery Court, the plaintiff has agreed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice against the plaintiff and all other class members in exchange for a payment that is not material to Fresenius Medical Care.

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings – Qui tam complaint (Massachusetts)

On February 15, 2011, a qui tam relator’s complaint under the False Claims Act against FMCH was unsealed by order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and served by the relator. The United States has not intervened in the case United States ex rel. Chris Drennen v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., 2009 Civ. 10179 (D. Mass.). The relator’s complaint, which was first filed under seal in February 2009, alleges that FMCH seeks and receives reimbursement from government payors for serum ferritin and hepatitis B laboratory tests that are medically unnecessary or not properly ordered by a physician. On March 6, 2011, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking the production of documents related to the same laboratory tests that are the subject of the relator’s complaint. FMCH has cooperated fully in responding to the additional Civil Investigative Demand, and will vigorously contest the relator’s complaint.

Subpoena “New York”

On June 29, 2011, FMCH received a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y). On December 6, 2011, a single Company facility in New York received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services that was substantially similar to the one issued by the U.S. Attorney for the E.D.N.Y. These subpoenas are part of a criminal and civil investigation into relationships between retail pharmacies and outpatient dialysis facilities in the State of New York and into the reimbursement under government payor programs in New York for medications provided to patients with endstage renal disease. Among the issues encompassed by the investigation is whether retail pharmacies may have provided or received compensation from the New York Medicaid program for pharmaceutical products that should be provided by the dialysis facilities in exchange for the New York Medicaid payment to the dialysis facilities. FMCH has cooperated in the investigation.

Subpoena “American Access Care, LLC”

Civil investigative demands were issued under the supervision of the United States Attorneys for Rhode Island and Connecticut to American Access Care, LLC (AAC) and certain affiliated entities prior to Fresenius Medical Care’s acquisition of AAC in October 2011. In March 2012, a third subpoena was issued under the supervision of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The subpoenas cover a wide range of documents and activities of AAC, but appear to focus on coding and billing practices and procedures. Fresenius Medical Care has assumed responsibility for responding to the subpoenas and is cooperating fully with the United States Attorneys.

Internal review

Fresenius Medical Care has received communications alleging certain conduct in certain countries outside the United States and Germany that may violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or other anti-bribery laws. In response to the allegations, the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee of Fresenius Medical Care’s Supervisory Board is conducting an internal review with the assistance of independent counsel retained for such purpose. Fresenius Medical Care voluntarily advised the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice that allegations have been made and of Fresenius Medical Care’s internal review. Fresenius Medical Care has also directed its independent counsel, in conjunction with Fresenius Medical Care’s Compliance Department, to review Fresenius Medical Care’s compliance program including internal controls related to compliance with international anti-bribery laws and implement appropriate enhancements. Fresenius Medical Care is fully committed to FCPA compliance. It cannot predict the final outcome of its review.

Subpoenas “Massachusetts and Louisiana”

In December 2012 and January 2013, FMCH received subpoenas from the United States Attorneys for the District of Massachusetts and the Western District of Louisiana requesting production of a range of documents relating to products manufactured by FMCH, including the Granuflo ® and Naturalyte ® dialysate concentrate products. FMCH intends to cooperate fully in these matters.

In the ordinary course of Fresenius Group’s operations, the Fresenius Group is subject to litigation, arbitration and investigations relating to various aspects of its business. The Fresenius Group regularly analyzes current information about such claims for probable losses and provides accruals for such matters, including estimated expenses for legal services, as appropriate.

The Fresenius Group, like other health care providers, conducts its operations under intense government regulation and scrutiny. It must comply with regulations which relate to or govern the safety and efficacy of medical products and supplies, the operation of manufacturing facilities, laboratories and dialysis clinics, and environmental and occupational health and safety. The Fresenius Group must also comply with the laws of the United States, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, the federal Stark Law, and other federal and state fraud and abuse laws. Applicable laws or regulations may be amended, or enforcement agencies or courts may make interpretations that differ from Fresenius Group’s interpretations or the manner in which it conducts its business. Enforcement has become a high priority for the federal government and some states. In addition, the provisions of the False Claims Act authorizing payment of a portion of any recovery to the party bringing the suit encourage private plaintiffs to commence “qui tam” or “whistle blower” actions. In May 2009, the scope of the False Claims Act was expanded and additional protections for whistle blowers and procedural provisions to aid whistle blowers’ ability to proceed in a False Claims Act case were added. By virtue of this regulatory environment, Fresenius Group’s business activities and practices are subject to extensive review by regulatory authorities and private parties, and continuing audits, investigative demands, subpoenas, other inquiries, claims and litigation relating to Fresenius Group’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Fresenius Group may not always be aware that an inquiry or action has begun, particularly in the case of “whistle blower” actions, which are initially filed under court seal.

The Fresenius Group operates many facilities throughout the United States and other parts of the world. In such a decentralized system, it is often difficult to maintain the desired level of oversight and control over the thousands of individuals employed by many affiliated companies. The Fresenius Group relies upon its management structure, regulatory and legal resources, and the effective operation of its compliance program to direct, manage and monitor the activities of these employees. On occasion, the Fresenius Group may identify instances where employees or other agents deliberately, recklessly or inadvertently contravene Fresenius Group’s policies or violate applicable law. The actions of such persons may subject the Fresenius Group and its subsidiaries to liability under the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Stark Law, the False Claims Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, among other laws and comparable laws of other countries.

Physicians, hospitals and other participants in the health care industry are also subject to a large number of lawsuits alleging professional negligence, malpractice, product liability, worker’s compensation or related claims, many of which involve large claims and significant defense costs. The Fresenius Group has been and is currently subject to these suits due to the nature of its business and expects that those types of lawsuits may continue. Although the Fresenius Group maintains insurance at a level which it believes to be prudent, it cannot assure that the coverage limits will be adequate or that insurance will cover all asserted claims. A successful claim against the Fresenius Group or any of its subsidiaries in excess of insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect upon it and the results of its operations. Any claims, regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, could have a material adverse effect on Fresenius Group’s reputation and business.

The Fresenius Group has also had claims asserted against it and has had lawsuits filed against it relating to alleged patent infringements or businesses that it has acquired or divested. These claims and suits relate both to operation of the businesses and to the acquisition and divestiture transactions. The Fresenius Group has, when appropriate, asserted its own claims, and claims for indemnification. A successful claim against the Fresenius Group or any of its subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect upon its business, financial condition, and the results of its operations. Any claims, regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, could have a material adverse effect on Fresenius Group’s reputation and business.

Accrued special charge of Fresenius Medical Care for legal matters

At December 31, 2001, Fresenius Medical Care recorded a pre-tax special charge of US$258 million to reflect anticipated expenses associated with the defense and resolution of pre-Merger tax claims, Merger-related claims, and commercial insurer claims. The costs associated with the Settlement Agreement and settlements with insurers have been charged against this accrual. With the exception of the proposed US$115 million (€87 million) payment under the Settlement Agreement in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings, all other matters included in the special charge have been resolved. While Fresenius Medical Care believes that its remaining accrual reasonably estimates its currently anticipated costs related to the continued defense and resolution of this matter, no assurances can be given that its actual costs incurred will not exceed the amount of this accrual.

Continue reading:
31. Financial instruments