KenneyMcCaffertyTax
Archive for May, 2011
KM Case Results in $82.6 Million Judgment Against Renal Care Group
Tuesday, May 31st, 2011
Following the 6th Circuit’s dismissal of an appeal by Defendants Renal Care Group and Fresenius Medical Care for lack of jurisdiction, on May 26, 2011, U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes entered an order awarding $82.6 million to the United States in a Medicare fraud case against the two companies. While replacing an earlier $19.3 million judgment issued last year against the same defendants, the Court upholds its prior determinations against RCG.
In his written opinion, Judge Haynes stated that RCG and its parent company, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. “exhibited reckless disregard of legal mandates” in their billing practices and remarked that management officials failed to heed the advice of company lawyers. Applying the full force and effect of the False Claims Act’s provisions, in rendering the judgment, Judge Haynes trebled the calculated damages for a total of $38,873,592 and imposed maximum civil penalties in the amount of $43,769,000 for a total of $82,642,592. Pending any appeal by the defendants, this judgment represents a tremendous success for the Government in the fight against fraud and reinforces the harsh penalties for violative practices by corporations.
Filed in 2005 under the False Claims Act on behalf of former RCG employee Julie Williams, and nephrologists, Dr. John Martinez by Philadelphia based firms Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. and Egan Young, the case alleges that Renal Care Group (“RCG”) submitted false claims for equipment provided to End-Stage Renal Disease (“ESRD”) home dialysis patients from January 1999 through December 2005. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that RCG set up a sham billing company, RCG Supply Co., thereby interfering with patients’ right of choice for supply options.
Transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee in 2009, the federal case was led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri under the direction of Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lay with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee, under the direction of Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Rivera, and Laurie Oberembt and John Henebery from the Department of Justice.
To read Judge Haynes Memorandum Opinion, please click here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
SEC Whistleblower Program Rules Available
Thursday, May 26th, 2011
Look for this link on the SEC's home page.
Since the Commission’s 3-2 vote adopting the final rules yesterday, the SEC has made the document available on its website at ttp://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-116.htm
Kenney & McCafferty is carefully reviewing the document and determing how the new rules can benefit those reporting securities violations. For a free consultation about a potential claim of your own, please call K&M today.
Tags: abuse, corporate fraud, False Claims Act, fraud, government fraud, health care fraud, pharmaceutical fraud, retaliate, retaliation, Tax Fraud, tax whistleblower, waste, whistle blower, whistle blowing, whistleblower, whistleblowing, wrongful termination
Posted in corporate fraud, Corporate Tax Fraud, False Claims Act, government fraud, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, SEC Whistleblower Program, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
SEC Adopts Final Whistleblower Program Rules
Wednesday, May 25th, 2011
Mary Schapiro presided over the vote approving the SEC whistleblower rules.
In a split vote, the SEC adopted final rules to implement the whistleblower program provisions enacted under Dodd Frank in July 2010. Chairman Mary Schapiro presided over the discussion, with Sean McKessy and Stephen Cohen of the SEC’s staff answering questions by the commissioners on the proposal.
Cohen said that the SEC had strengthened its Office of Market Intelligence to handle the incoming tips and would be adding a special Whistleblower page to a new Tips, Complaints, and Referrals section of the SEC’s webpage. McKessy said that they have not seen a significant increase in the number of tips to the SEC since the passage of Dodd Frank, but staff has seen an improvement in the number of high quality tips received.
Commissioners Walter and Aguilar praised the SEC staff for implementing a “robust public process” leading to the development of today’s rules. Commissioner Paredes dissented and said that he thought the rules did not adequately preserve the role of internal corporate compliance programs and the process for reporting of tips would be a deterrent to whistleblowers. Paredes also said he voted against the proposal because the rules as proposed would create an “undue risk of encouraging low quality submissions.” Paredes said the issue was not the merit of whistleblower programs, but anticipated problems created by this particular set of rules.
Schapiro called for the vote, and the final rules were passed 3 to 2.
Tags: abuse, corporate fraud, False Claims Act, fraud, government fraud, health care fraud, pharmaceutical fraud, retaliate, retaliation, Tax Fraud, tax whistleblower, waste, whistle blower, whistle blowing, whistleblower, whistleblowing, wrongful termination
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
US Supreme Court Rules FOIA Responses Trigger Bar Against FCA Claims
Thursday, May 19th, 2011
Justice Clarence Thomas Wrote the Schindler Decision
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion holding that Freedom of Information Act request responses constitute “reports,” relators who rely on FOIA request responses can fall prey to the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act. The Court issued the opinion in Schindler Elevator Corp v. United States ex rel. Kirk on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg filed the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.
Relator Daniel Kirk, a military veteran, worked for Schindler Elevator from 1978 to 2003. He resigned in September 2003 saying that the company had forced him out. Kirk filed his False Claims action in 2005. In an amended complaint in 2007, Kirk alleged that Schindler has improperly submitted for payment hundreds of false claims to the government because Schindler had certified it was in compliance with VEVRAA reporting requirements. Kirk alleged the certification of compliance was false.
Relator Kirk sought verification that his allegations were correct by asking his wife to ask for Schindler’s reporting information through a FOIA request. Mrs. Kirk made three requests, and DOL responded with information that showed the reports were not filed for several years in question.
Schindler asked the Court to dismiss the case on the ground that the verification information Mrs. Kirk obtained through the FOIA requests was a “public disclosure.” Under the pre-existing public disclosure rules, whistleblower claims could be dismissed if the relator was found to have “based” the allegations on specified types of publically available information. In Schindler, J. Thomas said that a FOIA response = a report = a public disclosure. He left open the question of whether or not Mr. Kirk based his allegations on those FOIA responses.
False Claims actions can be complicated, and the statute requires a whistleblower to be represented by an attorney. For a free consultation on a potential government fraud claim, please call Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. today.
Tags: abuse, clarence thomas, corporate fraud, corruption, False claims, False Claims Act, FCA, FERA, fraud, fraud reward, government fraud, public disclosure, Qui Tam, reward, supreme court whistleblower, tax whistleblower, whistle blower, whistle blowing, whistleblower appeals, whistleblower reward, whistleblowing, wrongful termination
Posted in corporate fraud, False Claims Act, government fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
K&M Presents Testimony on Whistleblower Program
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011
The IRS Building in Washington, D.C.
Linda Stengle of Kenney & McCafferty, P.C. presented testimony before the IRS on May 11, 2011, on its proposed definition of “collected proceeds.” The definition, if approved, would form the basis of calculating whistleblower awards.
The IRS had four people on a panel to hear the comments. They were Tom Kane, Senior Legal Counsel; Stephen Whitlock, Director of the Whistleblower Office; Alexandra Minkovich, Attorney-Advisor; and Kirsten Witter, Chief of the Service’s Ethics and General Government Law Branch. The panel asked questions of a few presenters, including Stengle. Tom Kane stated that NOLs should be considered to be ordinary deductions and were not relevant to an award calculation. Kane also said there should be no 2 year waiting period imposed in cases involving a closing agreement and that further guidance would be issued with regard to whether whistleblowers can obtain a portion of criminal fines.
Stengle pointed out irregularities in the public comment process ordinarily required when the IRS changes a major regulation. Specifically, the IRS issued its Whistleblower Manual in June 2010 without public comment and narrowed the definition of “collected proceeds.” Senator Grassley, the author of the statute mandating IRS whistleblower awards, criticized the Manual and said that several sections worked to deter whistleblowers from reporting large scale tax underpayment. Stengle echoed Grassley’s request that the manual be held in abeyance while substantive sections undergo public comment.
Four other attorneys presented testimony on the topic. Among other comments, Richard Rubin observed that the proposed rule addressed the inclusion of specific categories of recovery into the definition, but no actual definition for “collected proceeds” exists anywhere in the regulations.
All those who presented stated that the proposed definition for collected proceeds needed to be broadened. The panel members gave no indication of when the IRS plans to publish the final version of the definition.
Tags: corporate fraud, government fraud, IRS, IRS reward, IRS whistleblower program, tax evasion, Tax Fraud, tax underpayment, tax whistleblower, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
Posted in Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, Estate Tax Fraud, IRS Whistleblower Office, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
Corporate Attorneys and Investigators Represent the Company – Not Whistleblowers
Wednesday, May 4th, 2011
Corporate investigators and attorneys will protect the company. It's their job.
A long time corporate investigator recently shared his concern that whistleblowers look to corporate investigators and attorneys for help and protection when they blow the whistle. Nothing could be further from the truth. “There’s nothing I can do,” said the investigator. “I’ve seen it over and over again. They are going to get their heads cut off.”
The investigator said he knew that whistleblowers, no matter the merit of their report, would be skillfully and systematically terminated with a substantial paper trail to support management’s actions.
“They look to me for help,” he said. “I work for the company. I tell them that, but they don’t seem to understand.”
Neither did CEO Ian Norris of Morgan Crucible Company. Morgan Crucible came under government investigation for an international price fixing conspiracy. CEO Norris began a campaign to obstruct a grand jury investigation, and he shared details of his campaign with Morgan Crucible’s attorney. When the government learned of Norris’s obstruction, it charged Norris with corruptly persuading, and attempting and conspiring to corruptly persuade, others with intent to influence their testimony in grand jury proceedings. Morgan Crucible waived its attorney client privilege and granted permission for corporate counsel to testify. Norris fought the testimony, saying the corporate attorney also represented Norris in his individual capacity and was prohibited from testifying.
The Third Circuit disagreed, but found that communications about scope of representation were ambiguous. Ultimately, the court ruled that Morgan Crucible, alone, held the right to waive attorney client privilege, and the attorney testified.
The attorney testified that Norris, in front of counsel, disseminated a false cover story and scripts about the price fixing and encouraged everyone, including counsel, to relay the false information to investigators. The attorney said he did not know the information was false.
Attorneys and investigators should provide employees with explicit explanations about their role in investigating allegations of fraud within a corporation. They often do not, for a variety of reasons. Bottom line – employees need to take steps to protect themselves when they report corporate misconduct internally.
For a free consult about whether you have a potential government fraud claim, call K&M today.
Tags: abuse, attorney general, corporate fraud, corruption, False claims, False Claims Act, FCA, FERA, fraud, fraud reward, government fraud, health care fraud, IRS whistleblower, IRS whistleblower program, medicare fraud, pharmaceutical fraud, Qui Tam, retaliate, retaliation, SEC whistleblower, Tax cheat, tax evasion, Tax Fraud, tax whistleblower, whistle blowing, whistleblower award, whistleblowing, wrongful termination
Posted in Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, False Claims Act, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, retaliation, SEC Whistleblower Program, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
