Lawsuit Overview
April 28, 2015 (Shareholders Foundation) - An investor in Enzo Biochem, Inc. (NYSE:ENZ) filed a petition in effort to get access to company records over a $3.5 million settlement.
Shares of Enzo Biochem, Inc. (NYSE:ENZ) grew from $1.94 per share in April 2014 to a high as $6.07 per share in September 2014.
On October 9, 2014, Enzo Biochem, Inc reported its fourth quarter results and fiscaly year results. Enzo Biochem, Inc. reported that its Total Revenue rose from $93.71 million for the 12 months period that ended on July 31, 2013 to $95.95 million for the 12 months period that ended on July 31, 2014 and that its respective Net Loss declined from $18.24 million to $9.98 million.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. said that as previously disclosed, in 2012, it received a Subpoena Duces Tecum (the “Subpoena”) from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) and that the Subpoena was issued as part of an investigation being conducted by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York in conjunction with the OIG. Enzo Biochem, Inc. said that the investigation came to focus primarily on an alleged failure to collect diagnosis codes from physicians who ordered tests through Enzo Clinical Labs and that the time period initially covered by the investigation was from 2004 through 2011. Enzo Biochem, Inc. said that on September 22, 2014, Enzo Biochem, Inc. and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement to resolve this matter, in substantive form as disclosed in the Company’s fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2014.
Shares of Enzo Biochem, Inc. (NYSE:ENZ) declined from over $6 per share in September 2014 to as low as $2.57 per share in February 2015.
In January the investor asked the company to see several records from Enzo Biochem, Inc related to the decade-long alleged scheme to overbill Medicare and Medicaid through false diagnosis codes, as well as records regarding the September 2014 settlement. However, Enzo Biochem, Inc refused the investor’s demand saying the request overstepped his rights and that it lacked a “proper purpose.”