operator's provider agreement, but also that the predecessor and the successor are jointly and severally liable for CMPs. The regulations do not provide explicitly for either successor liability or joint and several liability for predecessor and successor organizations under a Medicare provider agreement. Given the significant financial liabilities at stake and the risk of sham provider agreement transfers to avoid CMPs if the successor liability policy is not adequately enforced, the agency would be well-served by amending its regulations to address these issues. 8 . Whether BP Care had notice of the CMP proceedings forms the only factual issue in this case; therefore it is the only determination of the district court that we review for clear error. See Cathedral Rock, 223 F.3d at 358 (<HOLDING>). 9 . It is possible that a business could
holding that district courts factual findings for purposes of obstruction enhancement are reviewed for clear error holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed for clear error holding that the district courts findings of fact when ruling on a 12b1 motion are reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error