In February, Vascular Solutions CEO Howard Root was acquitted of federal charges that he conspired to market medical devices for unapproved uses. Ten months later, Root has decided he would rather step away from the Maple Grove-based business he co-founded and ran for 20 years than face the risks that he says come from running a publicly traded medical device company.
The company announced Friday that it's being sold to Teleflex Inc., a company specializing in critical care and surgical products, for $1 billion.
"I love the company today; I love working with medical devices," Root told the Star Tribune Friday after the deal was announced. "But after going through [a] five-year criminal prosecution by the government over nothing, over what words my sales reps said, I just realized that I don't want to be in a situation where every night when I go to bed I worry about whether a sales rep said the wrong words."
Root informed the Vascular Solutions board that he no longer wanted to serve as CEO, and the company decided that it would be better off selling than hiring a replacement.
"In the end, the board believed, and I believe, Teleflex is the right company," Root said. "They've got the right interest in the development of medical devices for the benefit of the patients. They've got a great track record of growing companies."
Root's case, which involved allegations regarding the use of a laser treatment to close varicose veins, attracted lots of attention from the device industry, patient advocates and policymakers. Some experts saw his acquittal as a decision that would chill efforts by prosecutors to hold executives ultimately responsible for the actions of their subordinates, especially sales efforts bent on increasing revenue by creating unapproved uses for products.
Off-label promotion of devices and drugs has become a legal minefield, pitting free speech rights of companies against the government's responsibility to ensure that products are safe and effective through FDA approval.
Companies often have devices approved for one use, then market them aggressively for unapproved uses, a practice that is supposed to be illegal. Some recent court decisions have paved the way for companies to describe ways to use products off-label so long as those descriptions are true and not misleading.