Fulgent Genetics Inc

Current report

We may be required to modify our business practices, pay fines, incur significant expenses, or experience losses due to litigation or governmental investigations.

Current report

From time to time and in the ordinary course of our business, we have been and again may be subject to litigation or governmental investigation on a variety of matters in the United States or foreign jurisdictions, including, without limitation, regulatory, intellectual property, product liability, antitrust, consumer, false claims, whistleblower, Qui Tam, privacy, anti-kickback, anti-bribery, environmental, commercial, securities and employment litigation and claims and other legal proceedings that may arise from the conduct of our business. As noted above, we are currently subject to the HRSA audit and have initiated a voluntary disclosure process with the appropriate government contacts. Our activities relating to our products and services are subject to extensive regulation in the United States and foreign jurisdictions. Like many companies in our industry, we have in the ordinary course of business received inquiries, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, or CIDs, and other types of information requests from government authorities. As previously disclosed, we have received a CID issued by the DOJ pursuant to the False Claims Act related to its investigation of allegations of medically unnecessary laboratory testing, improper billing for laboratory testing, and remuneration received or provided in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. This CID requests information and records relating to certain of our customers named in the CID. As we also disclosed in prior filings, the SEC is conducting a non-public formal investigation, which appears to relate to the subject matters raised in the CID requests and our related disclosures and revenues reported in our Exchange Act reports filed for 2018 through 2020. We are fully cooperating with both the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with their requests and investigations. On May 6, 2024, the SEC staff, or the Staff, advised the Company that it has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company based on a corporate negligence theory, which, if authorized, would allege violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13, and 12b-20 thereunder. The Company does not believe that any enforcement recommendation is warranted and, on June 7, 2024, responded to the Staff’s preliminary recommendation. The Company is engaged in ongoing discussions with the SEC staff and the DOJ regarding these matters.

Current report

We cannot predict when these investigations and matters will be resolved, the outcome of the investigations and matters, or the potential impact on our business, which may ultimately be greater than we expect. In addition, government investigations and litigation generally may divert the attention of our management team and resources from our core business. As such, the time and attention of our management team in responding to these matters may limit their time available to devote to our business, and we may also incur significant expenses or experience losses in relation to these matters. As a result of these matters, we may also be required to alter the conduct of our operations or be subject to other penalties. Any of these circumstances may adversely affect our business, prospects, reputation and results of operations.

Previous report

Any changes in laws, regulations, or the enforcement discretion of the FDA with respect to the marketing of diagnostic products, or violations of laws or regulations by us, could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations, or financial condition.

Previous report

The laws and regulations governing the marketing of diagnostic products are evolving, extremely complex and in many instances, have no significant regulatory or judicial interpretations of these laws and regulations. Pursuant to its authority under the federal FDC Act, the FDA has jurisdiction over medical devices, including IVDs, and, therefore, potentially our clinical laboratory tests. Among other things, pursuant to the FDC Act and its implementing regulations, the FDA regulates the research, testing, manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, premarket clearance or approval, marketing and promotion, and sales and distribution of medical devices in the United States to ensure that medical products distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses. In addition, the FDA regulates the import and export of medical devices.

Previous report

Although the FDA has statutory authority to assure that medical devices and IVDs, potentially including our tests, are safe and effective for their intended uses, the FDA had historically exercised enforcement discretion and not enforced applicable provisions of the FDC Act and regulations with respect to LDTs, which are a particular type of medical device. We believe our tests are not currently subject to the FDA’s medical device regulations and the applicable FDC Act provisions due to their status as LDTs. However, in October 2023, the FDA issued a proposed rule aimed at regulating LDTs under the current medical device framework and proposing to phase out its existing enforcement discretion policy for this category of diagnostic tests. The agency’s final rule was released to the public on April 29, 2024 and will be officially published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024, with an effective date of July 5, 2024.

Previous report

The agency’s final rule provides that the LDT enforcement policy phase-out process will occur in gradual stages over a total period of four years, with pre-market approval applications for high-risk tests to be submitted by the 3.5-year mark. Moderate-risk and low-risks tests are expected to be in compliance at the 4-year mark, although FDA has stated that if premarket submissions are pending review it will continue to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to those tests. . Litigation challenging the agency’s authority to take adopt this final rule is highly likely, although the outcome of such litigation is uncertain. Litigation challenging the final rule may also have an impact on FDA’s plans to implement these new LDT requirements, making the potential implementation timeline somewhat uncertain. Affected stakeholders continue to press for a comprehensive legislative solution to create a harmonized paradigm for oversight of LDTs by both the FDA and CMS, instead of implementation of the FDA’s final rule, which may be disruptive to the industry and to patient access to certain diagnostic tests.

Previous report

Separately, members of Congress have been working with stakeholders for several years on a possible bill to reform the regulation of in vitro clinical tests including LDTs. For example, as drafted and re-introduced for consideration by the current Congress, the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development Act, or the VALID Act, has been garnering bipartisan and bicameral support. The VALID Act would codify into law the term “in vitro clinical test” to create a new medical product category separate from medical devices that includes products currently regulated as IVDs, as well as LDTs. The VALID Act would also create a new system for labs and hospitals to use to submit their tests electronically to the FDA for approval, which is aimed at reducing the amount of time it takes for the agency to approve such tests, and establish a new program to expedite the development of diagnostic tests that can be used to address a current unmet need for patients. Most recently, on March 21, 2024, the House Energy and Commerce held a subcommittee hearing titled “Evaluating Approaches to Diagnostic Test Regulation and the Impact of the FDA’s

Previous report

Proposed Rule.” The private witnesses testifying at the hearing expressed broad support for the bipartisan VALID Act instead of the FDA’s plan to use its medical device authorities to regulate LDTs.

Previous report

It is unclear whether Congress will take action, through the VALID Act or otherwise, to supersede FDA’s recent final rule with comprehensive diagnostic reform legislation, or whether such legislation would be signed into law by President Biden. In addition, at this time it is unclear what testing and data may be required to support any required FDA clearance or approval of our tests, should the final rule be fully implemented as envisioned by FDA and HHS.

Previous report

If FDA implements the LDT final rule or Congress enacts comprehensive legislation to regulate in vitro diagnostics, or if the FDA disagrees with our assessment that our tests meet the criteria to be marketed LDTs, we could, for the first time, be subject to enforcement of a variety of regulatory requirements, including registration and listing, medical device reporting and quality control, and we could be required to obtain premarket clearance or approval for our existing tests and any new tests we may develop, which may force us to cease marketing our tests until we obtain the required clearance or approval. The premarket review process can be lengthy, expensive, time-consuming and unpredictable. Further, obtaining premarket clearance may involve, among other things, successfully completing clinical trials. Clinical trials require significant time and cash resources and are subject to a high degree of risk, including risks of experiencing delays, failing to complete the trial or obtaining unexpected or negative results. If we are required to obtain premarket clearance or approval and/or conduct premarket clinical trials, our development costs could significantly increase, our introduction of any new tests we may develop may be delayed and sales of our existing tests could be interrupted or stopped. Any of these outcomes could reduce our revenue or increase our costs and materially adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition. Moreover, any cleared or approved labeling claims may not be consistent with our current claims or adequate to support continued adoption of and reimbursement for our tests. For instance, if we are required by the FDA to label our tests as investigational, or if labeling claims the FDA allows us to make are limited, order levels may decline and reimbursement may be adversely affected. As a result, we could experience significantly increased development costs and a delay in generating additional revenue from our existing tests or from tests we may develop.

Previous report

In addition, while we qualify all materials used in our products in accordance with the regulations and guidelines of CLIA, the FDA could promulgate regulations or guidance documents impacting our ability to purchase materials necessary for the performance of our tests. If any of the reagents we obtain from suppliers and use in our tests are affected by future regulatory actions, our business could be adversely affected, including by increasing the cost of testing or delaying, limiting or prohibiting the purchase of reagents necessary to perform testing with our products.

Previous report

Failure to comply with any applicable FDA requirements could trigger a range of enforcement actions by the FDA, including warning letters, civil monetary penalties, injunctions, criminal prosecution, recall or seizure, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of operations and denial of or challenges to applications for clearance or approval, as well as significant adverse publicity.