Veloxis Pharmaceuticals to Pay Over $46 Million to Resolve Kickback Allegations
The company agreed to pay more than $46 million in criminal and civil penalties to settle allegations of a kickback scheme involving its kidney transplant drug.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 1:15 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 26, 2026, 1:15 p.m. ETFirst report
Veloxis Pharmaceuticals to Pay Over $46 Million to Resolve Kickback Allegations
Veloxis Pharmaceuticals Inc. has agreed to pay more than $46 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations arising from a purported years-long kickback scheme involving its kidney transplant drug, Envarsus, according to a report by the National Law Review.
The allegations, as reported by the National Law Review, include that Veloxis paid kickbacks to healthcare professionals and other hospital personnel in the form of lavish meals, alcohol, expensive trips and resort stays, gifts, and purported consulting fees in exchange for prescriptions. The settlement includes more than $10 million in criminal penalties, approximately $34.45 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations, and a $1.55 million civil penalty, according to the report.
The case is a criminal matter brought by the Department of Justice in district court. The National Law Review reports that Veloxis likely had no choice but to make admissions in the context of the deferred prosecution agreement. The proceeding stage is listed as "consented" and the resolution type is "settlement." The event is still developing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 17:15current
First published.
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 17:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.