KenneyMcCaffertyTax

Posts Tagged ‘retaliation’

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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

Senators Introduce Bill to Update Whistleblower Protection Act

Friday, April 8th, 2011

Earlier this week, a group of bipartisan Senators introduced the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011.  The bill aims to update the Whistleblower Protection Act, which provides protection from retaliation for federal employees who expose waste, fraud, and abuse in federal agencies.

The bill is being spearheaded by Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine).  Among the sponsors of the legislation is Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who co-authored the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act.

If successful, the legislation would:

•clarify that “any” disclosure of gross waste or mismanagement, fraud, abuse, or illegal activity may be protected, but not disagreements over legitimate policy decisions;
•suspend the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals sole jurisdiction over federal employee whistleblower cases for five (5) years;
•extend Whistleblower Protection Act coverage and other non-discrimination and anti-retaliatory laws to all employees of the Transportation Security Administration;
•clarify that whistleblowers may disclose evidence of censorship of scientific or technical information under the same standards that apply to disclosures of other kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse;
•codify and strengthen the anti-gag provision that has been part of every Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill since 1988;
•allow jury trials under certain circumstances for a period of five years;
•provide the Merit Systems Protection Board with authority to consider and grant summary judgment motions in certain cases for a period of 5 years;
•clarify that employees protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act may make protected classified disclosures to Congress using the same process as intelligence community employees;
•establish protections for the intelligence community modeled on existing whistleblower protections for FBI employees;
•establish a process within the executive branch for review if a security clearance is allegedly denied or revoked because of a protected whistleblower disclosure;
•establish Whistleblower Protection Ombudsmen to educate agency personnel about whistleblower rights; and
•provide the Office of Special Counsel with the independent right to file “friend of the court” briefs, or amicus briefs, with federal court

According to Senator Akaka, the bill “strengthens the Whistleblower Protection Act and restores congressional intent that whistleblowers be protected from retaliation.  This protection is crucial to efforts to improve government management, cut the deficit, protect public health and safety, and to secure the nation.”

Senator Collins added, “this [bill] should give federal workers the peace of mind that if they speak out, they will be protected.”

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Galileo – History's Greatest Whistleblower?

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

Galileo faces the Inquisition

February 15, Galileo’s birthday, is a fitting time to reflect upon Galileo’s experience with blowing the whistle on the Ptolemaic theory, the long held belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and the planets orbited the Earth. Galileo today is called “the father of modern observational astronomy” and “the father of modern physics.” Stephen Hawking stated, “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.” Most people don’t realize that Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for his advocacy of Copernicanism, found guilty of heresy, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

As brilliant he was, Galileo did not understand the environment in which he was operating, and he failed to adhere to rules and constraints placed on those attempting to advance scientific theories in the 1600s. His support of heliocentrism offended the Catholic church. The church admonished Galileo, who thought he would be clever and work around the constraints that had been placed on him. After being chastised, Galileo waited years to publish Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems, but he didn’t follow the rules. To publish, he needed papal permission and formal authorization from the Inquisition. He didn’t get them. Had he followed the rules, Galileo probably could have avoided trial and arrest. Instead, Galileo was:

*   Found “vehemently suspect” of heresy.
*   Sentenced to formal imprisonment, which was later commuted to house arrest.
*   Had his publication, Dialogue, banned.
*   Forbidden to ever publish again.

After his death, the world eventually lauded his contributions, but Galileo died without acclaim and in isolation.

Whistleblowers should learn from Galileo’s mistakes. No matter how brilliant a whistleblower may be, it is impossible for everyone to know everything. There is no substitute for experienced legal advice when one decides to blow the whistle. Galileo originally had many supporters who could have guided him the intricacies of the papacy’s rules for publication. He didn’t ask, and he thought he had the situation well in hand. He was wrong.

If Galileo could not figure out how to maneuver through the intricacies of successfully blowing the whistle, who can? Fortunately, whistleblowers today have Kenney & McCafferty to call for expert advice. Whistleblowers should educate themselves on the pros and cons before blowing the whistle. If you want to report fraud against the government, save yourself some headaches. Get a free consultation by calling Kenney & McCafferty today.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, False Claims Act, IRS Whistleblower Office, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, retaliation, SEC Whistleblower Program, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Get Smart about Whistleblowing – Retaliation is Human Nature

Monday, February 7th, 2011

In 2008 Judith Moldover, Senior Staff Attorney of the Lawyer’s Alliance of New York, stated, “[R]etaliation is human nature.” Moldover made the statement to a group of human resources professionals at a conference sponsored by the Society for Human Resource Management. As one who spent most of her career defending employers, Moldover warned the HR crowd that retaliation claims would increase because there is an almost “irresistible urge to strike back” against employees who complain about problems or who file lawsuits against their employers. Kenney & McCafferty speaks every day to victims of retaliation. Perhaps because retaliation is so ingrained, employees who speak out against fraud, waste, or wrongdoing should expect their bosses to retaliate against them. The only thing employees can do is smarten up. Figure out if you are a likely target of retaliation as early as you can. Assess whether you have a viable whistleblower claim. And, think twice about making any further reports to your boss.

If you believe your boss is genuinely trying to improve the workplace and wants your input, make good faith reports of problems, at least once or twice. Some employers will do the right thing, and some will even be grateful. Many will not. As Moldover points out, no one likes to hear about problems, and most employers would rather hear that their departments or companies are running well than hear a report of non-compliance or a misuse of company funds. Sometimes a whistleblower can assess the workplace environment and get clues about how a particular supervisor will react to reports of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Suppose you make a report. How does your boss react? Does your boss correct the wrongdoer, or give him more support? Does your boss try to blame the problem on you? Does your boss try to diminish your value to the company somehow? Does your boss suddenly give greater weight to petty workplace problems of yours when those were previously tolerated? Does your boss suddenly give you demeaning work assignments? Does your boss allow others to be rude to you? Are your resources taken away, while wrongdoers get more resources? Does your access to the boss decrease? Does the wrongdoer get more access? Is the wrongdoer emboldened somehow? Does your boss suddenly chastise you in ways that never happened before? Are you passed over when it comes time to hand out plum assignments? Signs of retaliation can be subtle or obvious, but when whistleblowers look back, they often realize that they had observed specific small behaviors that indicated they would be punished for their efforts to address fraud. If your boss shows signs of retaliation against you, even in small ways, step back, and assess the situation.

Unfortunately, most whistleblowers are people of high integrity and perhaps undue optimism. They see little, subtle signs of retaliation like those described above, but they don’t want to be involved in covering up fraud, or they just can’t bring themselves to gloss over a co-worker’s misconduct. Sometimes, they just have too much faith that their companies will appreciate their efforts. By the time the hapless whistleblower contacts an attorney, it’s too late. The well meaning, smart, trustworthy supporter of the company has experienced high level retaliation – attacks on reputation, bad performance appraisals, demotion, and perhaps, loss of job. Despite well publicized reporting protections, retaliation can take many forms, and even in serious, obvious cases, it takes a long time to be made whole when an employer retaliates against you. Think twice before making that report to a boss who doesn’t want to hear it.

Of course, many employees don’t have much choice about whether or not to report fraud, waste, and abuse. Compliance officers, auditors, attorneys – these and many other occupations require one to take action of some sort when encountering fraud. All employees can and should take steps to protect themselves when reporting misconduct and illegal behavior. In cases where government money is involved, even indirectly, the whistleblower should get legal advice early. A workplace insider who reports government fraud can be an important asset to government prosecutors in a False Claims action, for example. A terminated employee is often less valuable.

K&M would like to help you assess whether you have a viable whistleblower claim and what steps you can take to protect yourself in the process of addressing government fraud. If you know of government fraud in your workplace, and you suspect even a hint of possible retaliation, call K&M for a free, expert consultation today.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, False Claims Act, IRS Whistleblower Office, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, Press Release, retaliation, SEC Whistleblower Program, Tax Fraud | Comments Off

|