COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Regulatory Matters Laws and regulations governing Medicare and Medicaid programs are complex and subject to review and interpretation. Compliance with such laws and regulations is evaluated regularly, the results of which can be subject to future governmental review and interpretation, and can include significant regulatory action including fines, penalties, and exclusion from certain governmental programs. Included in these laws and regulations is monitoring performed by the Office of Civil Rights which covers the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the terms of which require healthcare providers (among other things) to safeguard the privacy and security of certain patient protected health information. Regulatory Investigations The Company is subject to various governmental inspections, audits, and investigations that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The following governmental investigations are ongoing, although the government entities conducting these investigations have not asserted claims against the Company in connection with these investigations. On April 8, 2024, Providence Administrative Consulting Services (“Providence”) and Paradise Valley Healthcare Center (“Paradise Valley”) received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting information and documents relating to an investigation of Paradise Valley and Providence to determine whether Paradise Valley and Providence violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to Medicare. The investigation relates to whether Providence and Paradise Valley improperly induced patient referrals through remuneration in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The CID includes requests for information relating to referral source relationships, including relationships with medical directors and other individuals. Since the receipt of the CID, the DOJ has made additional requests for information from Providence, including marketing materials and certain expense data across all Providence facilities. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing. On September 11, 2024, the Company received a CID from the DOJ requesting information and documents relating to an investigation of the Company’s California-based skilled nursing facilities to determine whether the Company violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to Medicare for reimbursement under the patient-driven payment model (PDPM) for skilled nursing and rehabilitation services. The CID includes requests for information relating to the Company’s practices and incentives pertaining to the completion and submission of Minimum Data Set Assessments and the resulting PDPM rates. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing. On September 30, 2024, Providence Group, Inc. (“Providence Group”) received a CID from the DOJ requesting information and documents relating to an investigation of its skilled nursing facilities, specifically including Bishop Care Center (“Bishop”) to determine whether Providence Group violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to Medicare for reimbursement under the COVID-19 related Hospital Stay Waiver (otherwise known as the 1135 waiver). The CID includes requests for information relating to 1135 COVID Waiver practices at Bishop. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing. On February 26, 2025, the Company received a subpoena from the DOJ per the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) relating to an investigation into possible violations of various sections of 18 U.S.C. that prohibit the making of fraudulent or false statements to any branch of the government of the United States. The subpoena includes requests for information relating to PACS’ 1135 COVID Waiver practices, billing of Medicare Part B for respiratory and sensory integration therapy services, change of insurance enrollment, cost waivers for co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance, and claim reimbursement from Medicare for bad debt. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing. SEC Investigation The SEC’s Division of Enforcement is conducting an investigation into matters that relate to the Company’s accounting and financial reporting and disclosure, and the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls. The Company is cooperating with each of the regulatory investigations identified above and the SEC investigation to produce the requested information and documentation. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any of these investigations and there can be no assurance that one or more of these investigations will not result in suits or actions alleging, or findings of, violations of federal or state laws that could lead to the imposition of damages, fines, penalties, restitution, other monetary liabilities, sanctions, settlements or changes to our business practices or operations that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The legal costs associated with responding to the regulatory investigations and SEC investigations can be substantial, regardless of the outcome. The Company is unable at this time to estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise in the event that a claim is asserted against it in connection with any of these investigations for reasons including that these matters are in early stages, no factual issues have been resolved in these matters, and there is uncertainty as to the outcome of these matters, which can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards. Litigation The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of the patients and residents served by the Company’s independent operating subsidiaries. The Company, and others in the industry are subject to an increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that services provided have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. In addition, the Company, its independent operating subsidiaries, and others in the industry are subject to claims and lawsuits in connection with COVID-19 and a facility’s preparation for and/or response to COVID-19. Healthcare litigation (including class action litigation) is common and is filed based upon a wide variety of claims and theories. The Company and other companies in its industry are routinely subjected to varying types of claims and suits, including class-actions. Class-action suits have the potential to result in large jury verdicts and settlements, and may result in significant legal costs. The Company expects the plaintiffs’ bar to continue to be aggressive in their pursuit of claims. The Company has been, and continues to be, subject to other claims and legal actions that arise in the normal course of business, including potential claims filed by patients or others on their behalf related to patient care and treatment (professional negligence claims), as well as employment related claims filed by current or former employees. For example, the Company has been subjected to, and is currently involved in, litigation alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour laws resulting from the alleged failure to pay wages, to timely provide and authorize meal and rest breaks, and related causes of action. In addition to the litigations described above, the Company is also subject to the following litigation: Litigation – Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Actions On November 13, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) (“Manchin Action”) was filed against the Company, individual defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Jacqueline Millard, and Taylor Leavitt; and underwriter defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Truist Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Stephens Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Regions Securities LLC. The complaint brings claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges the Company and its leadership engaged in a multi-year scheme to inflate revenue and profitability by (i) exploiting a COVID-era Medicare waiver to “flip” long-term Medicaid patients to higher-paying Medicare coverage, (ii) billing unnecessary Medicare Part B respiratory and sensory integration therapies, and (iii) falsifying licensure and staffing documentation. On January 7, 2025, the court consolidated the Manchin action with a similar action brought by plaintiff New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System, and on February 11, 2025 the court appointed 1199SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and as ordered by the court on May 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 19, 2025, which added Joshua Jergensen and P.J. Sanford as named defendants, and also brought additional claims pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 17, 2026, which Plaintiffs opposed on April 20, 2026. Defendants’ reply is due on June 4, 2026. On February 14, 2025, a derivative action originally filed by plaintiff Theresa Howard-Hines (“Howard-Hines Action”) captioned IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 1:25-cv-01343-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) was filed against defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Michelle Lewis, Jacqueline Millard, Taylor Leavitt, and Evelyn Dilsaver, with the Company named as nominal defendant. The complaint brings claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution, based on substantially similar allegations as in the Manchin Action. On April 8, 2025, the court consolidated the Howard-Hines action with a similar derivative action filed by plaintiff Adam Beckman, under the name In re PACS Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On June 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action until the earlier of the dismissal of the Manchin Action, the denial of any motion to dismiss in the Manchin Action, or the termination of the stay. On August 19, 2025, a derivative action captioned Boers v. Murray, et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00119-DAK-DBP (D. Utah) was filed against the same defendants and alleging substantially the same claims and theories as IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on December 8, 2025, without prejudice to her ability to refile, and refiled on April 17, 2026, against the same defendants making the same basic claims. Legal proceedings can be complex and take many months, or even years, to reach resolution, with the final outcome depending on a number of variables, some of which are not within our control. Therefore, although the Company will vigorously defend itself in each of the actions described above and any other legal proceedings, their ultimate resolution and potential financial and other impacts on the Company are uncertain but could be material. Regardless of final outcomes, however, any such proceedings, claims, and investigations may nonetheless impose a significant burden on management and employees and be costly to defend, with unfavorable preliminary, interim or final rulings. The Company accrues a liability amount when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. Such legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. The Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in connection with the Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Actions at this time for reasons including that these matters are in early stages, no factual issues have been resolved in these matters, and there is uncertainty as to the outcome of these matters. The defense of any of the litigations described above may result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards. While there can be no assurance, based on the Company’s evaluation of information currently available, management does not believe the results of such litigations would have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company, taken as a whole. However, the Company’s assessment may evolve based upon further developments in the proceedings at issue. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible. Indemnities From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily include (i) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners or prior facility operators for post-transfer environmental or other liabilities and other claims arising from the Company use of the applicable premises, (ii) operations transfer agreements, in which the Company agrees to indemnify past operators of facilities against certain liabilities arising from the transfer of the operation and/or the operation thereof after the transfer to the Company's independent operating subsidiary, (iii) certain lending agreements, under which the Company may be required to indemnify the lender against various claims and liabilities, and (iv) certain agreements with the Company officers, directors and others, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of the nature of their relationship to the Company. The terms of such obligations vary by contract and, in most instances, do not expressly state or include a specific or maximum dollar amount. Generally, amounts under these contracts cannot be reasonably estimated until a specific claim is asserted. Consequently, because no claims have been asserted, no liabilities have been recorded for these obligations on the condensed consolidated balance sheets for any of the periods presented. Concentration of Credit Risks The Company’s credit risks primarily relate to cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, and accounts receivable. Cash and cash equivalents are primarily held in bank accounts and overnight investments. Restricted cash is primarily invested in commercial paper and certificates of deposit with financial institutions and other interest-bearing accounts. Accounts receivable consist primarily of amounts due from patients (funded through Medicare, Medicaid, other contractual programs and through private payors) and from other health care companies for management, accounting and other services. The collectability of account receivable balances is dependent on the availability of funds from certain programs that rely on governmental funding, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. The Company’s receivables from Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for 24% and 28% of total accounts receivable, respectively, at March 31, 2026 and 23% and 30% of total accounts receivable, respectively, at December 31, 2025. These receivables represent the only significant concentration of credit risk for the Company. The Company does not believe there are significant credit risks associated with these governmental programs. The Company performs continual credit evaluations of the Company’s clients and maintains appropriate allowances for credit losses on any accounts receivable proving uncollectible, and continually monitors and adjusts these allowances as necessary. The Company’s operating subsidiaries, excluding the subsidiaries that exclusively operate assisted living and independent living facilities, have all of their skilled nursing beds designated for care of patients under federal Medicare and/or state Medicaid programs. Approximately 48% of the Company’s skilled nursing beds are located in California.

Laws and regulations governing Medicare and Medicaid programs are complex and subject to review and interpretation. Compliance with such laws and regulations is evaluated regularly, the results of which can be subject to future governmental review and interpretation, and can include significant regulatory action including fines, penalties, and exclusion from certain governmental programs. Included in these laws and regulations is monitoring performed by the Office of Civil Rights which covers the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the terms of which require healthcare providers (among other things) to safeguard the privacy and security of certain patient protected health information.

The Company is subject to various governmental inspections, audits, and investigations that arise in the ordinary course of its business. The following governmental investigations are ongoing, although the government entities conducting these investigations have not asserted claims against the Company in connection with these investigations.

On April 8, 2024, Providence Administrative Consulting Services (“Providence”) and Paradise Valley Healthcare Center (“Paradise Valley”) received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting information and documents relating to an investigation of Paradise Valley and Providence to determine whether Paradise Valley and Providence violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to Medicare. The investigation relates to whether Providence and Paradise Valley improperly induced patient referrals through remuneration in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The CID includes requests for information relating to referral source relationships, including relationships with medical directors and other individuals. Since the receipt of the CID, the DOJ has made additional requests for information from Providence, including marketing materials and certain expense data across all Providence facilities. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing.

On September 11, 2024, the Company received a CID from the DOJ requesting information and documents relating to an investigation of the Company’s California-based skilled nursing facilities to determine whether the Company violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to Medicare for reimbursement under the patient-driven payment model (PDPM) for skilled nursing and rehabilitation services. The CID includes requests for information relating to the Company’s practices and incentives pertaining to the completion and submission of Minimum Data Set Assessments and the resulting PDPM rates. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing.

On September 30, 2024, Providence Group, Inc. (“Providence Group”) received a CID from the DOJ requesting information and documents relating to an investigation of its skilled nursing facilities, specifically including Bishop Care Center (“Bishop”) to determine whether Providence Group violated the False Claims Act by submitting false claims to Medicare for reimbursement under the COVID-19 related Hospital Stay Waiver (otherwise known as the 1135 waiver). The CID includes requests for information relating to 1135 COVID Waiver practices at Bishop. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing.

On February 26, 2025, the Company received a subpoena from the DOJ per the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) relating to an investigation into possible violations of various sections of 18 U.S.C. that prohibit the making of fraudulent or false statements to any branch of the government of the United States. The subpoena includes requests for information relating to PACS’ 1135 COVID Waiver practices, billing of Medicare Part B for respiratory and sensory integration therapy services, change of insurance enrollment, cost waivers for co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance, and claim reimbursement from Medicare for bad debt. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, which is ongoing.

The Company is cooperating with each of the regulatory investigations identified above and the SEC investigation to produce the requested information and documentation. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any of these investigations and there can be no assurance that one or more of these investigations will not result in suits or actions alleging, or findings of, violations of federal or state laws that could lead to the imposition of damages, fines, penalties, restitution, other monetary liabilities, sanctions, settlements or changes to our business practices or operations that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The legal costs associated with responding to the regulatory investigations and SEC investigations can be substantial, regardless of the outcome.

The Company is unable at this time to estimate a loss or range of loss that may arise in the event that a claim is asserted against it in connection with any of these investigations for reasons including that these matters are in early stages, no factual issues have been resolved in these matters, and there is uncertainty as to the outcome of these matters, which can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards.

The skilled nursing business involves a significant risk of liability given the age and health of the patients and residents served by the Company’s independent operating subsidiaries. The Company, and others in the industry are subject to an increasing number of claims and lawsuits, including professional liability claims, alleging that services provided have resulted in personal injury, elder abuse, wrongful death or other related claims. In addition, the Company, its independent operating subsidiaries, and others in the industry are subject to claims and lawsuits in connection with COVID-19 and a facility’s preparation for and/or response to COVID-19.

Healthcare litigation (including class action litigation) is common and is filed based upon a wide variety of claims and theories. The Company and other companies in its industry are routinely subjected to varying types of claims and suits, including class-actions. Class-action suits have the potential to result in large jury verdicts and settlements, and may result in significant legal costs. The Company expects the plaintiffs’ bar to continue to be aggressive in their pursuit of claims.

The Company has been, and continues to be, subject to other claims and legal actions that arise in the normal course of business, including potential claims filed by patients or others on their behalf related to patient care and treatment (professional negligence claims), as well as employment related claims filed by current or former employees. For example, the Company has been subjected to, and is currently involved in, litigation alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour laws resulting from the alleged failure to pay wages, to timely provide and authorize meal and rest breaks, and related causes of action.

On November 13, 2024, a putative securities class action captioned Manchin v. PACS Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) (“Manchin Action”) was filed against the Company, individual defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Jacqueline Millard, and Taylor Leavitt; and underwriter defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Truist Securities, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Stephens Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Regions Securities LLC. The complaint brings claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges the Company and its leadership engaged in a multi-year scheme to inflate revenue and profitability by (i) exploiting a COVID-era Medicare waiver to “flip” long-term Medicaid patients to higher-paying Medicare coverage, (ii) billing unnecessary Medicare Part B respiratory and sensory integration therapies, and (iii) falsifying licensure and staffing documentation. On January 7, 2025, the court consolidated the Manchin action with a similar action brought by plaintiff New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System, and on February 11, 2025 the court appointed 1199SEIU Health Care

Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as lead counsel. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and as ordered by the court on May 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 19, 2025, which added Joshua Jergensen and P.J. Sanford as named defendants, and also brought additional claims pursuant to Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 17, 2026, which Plaintiffs opposed on April 20, 2026. Defendants’ reply is due on June 4, 2026.

On February 14, 2025, a derivative action originally filed by plaintiff Theresa Howard-Hines (“Howard-Hines Action”) captioned IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Lead Case No. 1:25-cv-01343-LJL (S.D.N.Y.) was filed against defendants Jason Murray, Derick Apt, Mark Hancock, Michelle Lewis, Jacqueline Millard, Taylor Leavitt, and Evelyn Dilsaver, with the Company named as nominal defendant. The complaint brings claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution, based on substantially similar allegations as in the Manchin Action. On April 8, 2025, the court consolidated the Howard-Hines action with a similar derivative action filed by plaintiff Adam Beckman, under the name In re PACS Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On June 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation staying the action until the earlier of the dismissal of the Manchin Action, the denial of any motion to dismiss in the Manchin Action, or the termination of the stay.

On August 19, 2025, a derivative action captioned Boers v. Murray, et. al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00119-DAK-DBP (D. Utah) was filed against the same defendants and alleging substantially the same claims and theories as IN RE PACS GROUP, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on December 8, 2025, without prejudice to her ability to refile, and refiled on April 17, 2026, against the same defendants making the same basic claims.

Legal proceedings can be complex and take many months, or even years, to reach resolution, with the final outcome depending on a number of variables, some of which are not within our control. Therefore, although the Company will vigorously defend itself in each of the actions described above and any other legal proceedings, their ultimate resolution and potential financial and other impacts on the Company are uncertain but could be material. Regardless of final outcomes, however, any such proceedings, claims, and investigations may nonetheless impose a significant burden on management and employees and be costly to defend, with unfavorable preliminary, interim or final rulings.

The Company accrues a liability amount when it believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. Such legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, some of which are beyond the Company’s control. The Company is unable to estimate a loss or range of loss in connection with the Securities Class Action and Shareholder Derivative Actions at this time for reasons including that these matters are in early stages, no factual issues have been resolved in these matters, and there is uncertainty as to the outcome of these matters.

The defense of any of the litigations described above may result in significant legal costs, regardless of the outcome, and can result in large settlement amounts or damage awards. While there can be no assurance, based on the Company’s evaluation of information currently available, management does not believe the results of such litigations would have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company, taken as a whole. However, the Company’s assessment may evolve based upon further developments in the proceedings at issue. The results of legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and material adverse outcomes are possible.

From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify parties against third-party claims. These contracts primarily include (i) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners or prior facility operators for post-transfer environmental or other liabilities and other claims arising from the Company use of the applicable premises, (ii) operations transfer agreements, in which the Company agrees to indemnify past operators of facilities against certain liabilities arising from the transfer of the operation and/or the operation thereof after the transfer to the Company's independent operating subsidiary, (iii) certain lending agreements, under which the Company may be required to indemnify the lender against various claims and liabilities, and (iv) certain agreements with the Company officers, directors and others, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of the nature of their relationship to the Company. The terms of such obligations vary by contract and, in most instances, do not expressly state or include a specific or maximum dollar amount. Generally, amounts under these contracts cannot be reasonably estimated until a specific claim is asserted. Consequently,

The Company’s credit risks primarily relate to cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, and accounts receivable. Cash and cash equivalents are primarily held in bank accounts and overnight investments. Restricted cash is primarily invested in commercial paper and certificates of deposit with financial institutions and other interest-bearing accounts. Accounts receivable consist primarily of amounts due from patients (funded through Medicare, Medicaid, other contractual programs and through private payors) and from other health care companies for management, accounting and other services. The collectability of account receivable balances is dependent on the availability of funds from certain programs that rely on governmental funding, primarily Medicare and Medicaid. The Company’s receivables from Medicare and Medicaid programs accounted for 24% and 28% of total accounts receivable, respectively, at March 31, 2026 and 23% and 30% of total accounts receivable, respectively, at December 31, 2025. These receivables represent the only significant concentration of credit risk for the Company. The Company does not believe there are significant credit risks associated with these governmental programs. The Company performs continual credit evaluations of the Company’s clients and maintains appropriate allowances for credit losses on any accounts receivable proving uncollectible, and continually monitors and adjusts these allowances as necessary.