KenneyMcCaffertyTax
Posts Tagged ‘whistleblower reward’
GSK Pleads Guilty and Pays $3 Billion to Resolve Allegations Brought under False Claims Act by Whistleblowers Represented by K&M
Monday, July 2nd, 2012
Philadelphia, July 2, 2012 – GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $3 Billion in criminal and civil fines, penalties and damages to settle allegations that the company defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other government funded health care programs in connection with its market practices for Advair, Wellbutrin, Paxil, Lamictal, Zofran, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex and Avandia. The settlement is the largest qui tam settlement in U.S. history. The settlement is the largest qui tam settlement in U.S. history.
Gregory Thorpe and Blair Hamrick, the first whistleblowers to file a qui tam action against GSK arising from this marketing misconduct nearly a decade ago, are represented by Kenney & McCafferty. As part of the record setting settlement, GSK agreed to pay $1.17 billion to settle claims brought by Thorpe and Hamrick. To read more about the settlement, click here.
To read the complaint filed on behalf of Thorpe and Hamrick, click here. Exhibits accompanying the complaint may be found here. Additionally, Thorpe’s internal report to compliance executives at GSK may be found within the Exhibits at 0000015-0000027.
To read the Complaint-in-Intervention filed by the United States, click here.
To read the Settlement Agreement, click here.
If you have knowledge of healthcare fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the False Claims Act, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tags: False Claims Act, FCA, fraud, GSK, health care fraud, pharmaceutical fraud, Qui Tam, reward, whistleblower, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
Posted in False Claims Act | Comments Off
SEC Disputes Story That It Blew Whistleblower’s Identity
Sunday, May 6th, 2012
In a recent article entitled “Source’s Cover Blown by the SEC,” the Wall Street Journal claimed that the SEC “inadvertently revealed the identity of a whistleblower.” The alleged disclosure occurred during the SEC’s investigation of Pipeline Trading Systems LLC. According to the article, an SEC lawyer “showed an executive who was being questioned a notebook from the whistleblower filled with jottings about trades, calls and meetings.” From that notebook, the executive claims he recognized the handwriting as that of Peter Earle, who happened to be the whistleblower who prompted the SEC’s investigation.
In a scathing response to the Journal’s story, the SEC disputes the allegations against it. In stark contrast to the story told by the Journal, the SEC asserted that it “in no way exposed Peter Earle as a whistleblower.” In fact, the Commission claims that the use of the notebook was neither “inadvertent” nor a “breach.” Instead, it was a “deliberate decision,” discussed by an SEC lawyer and his supervisor prior to the deposition in which the notebook was exhibited.
Going further, the SEC strongly disagrees with the allegation that the use of the notebooks in no way comprised Mr. Earle’s identity. According to the SEC, “it was widely known…that, after the termination of his employment in 2009, Mr. Earle had approached the SEC – a fact volunteered by witnesses and acknowledged by Mr. Earle long before the exhibition of his notebooks in November 2010.” Yet, despite this knowledge, the SEC maintains that, throughout the investigation, the Commission treated his status as a cooperating witness as confidential. There was “nothing about the notes…or about the SEC’s use of them as exhibits…that revealed anything about whether Mr. Earle or others were cooperating in the SEC’s investigation.”
If you have knowledge of Securities Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the SEC whistleblower program, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, including your ability to remain anonymous in filing for an award, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tags: SEC, SEC whistleblower, SEC Whistleblower Program, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
Posted in SEC Whistleblower Program | Comments Off
CFTC Accuses Royal Bank of Canada of Massive Trading Scheme
Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012
On Monday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) filed civil charges against Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”), accusing the bank of engaging in hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal stock future trades to gain Canadian tax credits.
“Today’s action should make clear that the CFTC will not hesitate to bring charges against even the most sophisticated market participants who unlawfully exploit the futures markets for their own gain,” said David Meister, Director of the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement.
The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that from at least June 2007 to May 2010, RBC conducted a massive wash sale scheme in connection with exchange-traded stock futures contracts. According to the CFTC, a small group of senior RBC employees allegedly created and managed a trading strategy whereby they improperly coordinated trades to allow subsidiaries of the bank to buy and sell stock futures without taking a position in the market, thereby eliminating, or washing, the risk of a loss.
Wash trades, the simultaneous and offsetting purchase and sale of futures contracts, are banned under U.S. futures law.
The lawsuit claims that the bank bought and sold stocks in U.S. and Canadian companies, and then took opposing positions on futures written on those same stocks. Specifically, RBC “allegedly non-competitively traded hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of narrow based stock index future and single stock futures contracts with two of its subsidiaries,” and then executed block trades on OneChicago LLC, an electronic futures exchange.
According to the complaint, those trades were not negotiated at arm’s length, as required by law. Federal regulations allow futures trades between companies and subsidiaries only if they are conducted on an arm’s length basis. In its complaint, the CFTC alleges that the trades were designed and controlled by senior RBC personnel acting on behalf of RBC’s behalf.
The goal of the scheme was to “realize lucrative Canadian tax benefits from holding certain public companies’ securities in its Canadian and offshore trading accounts,” while limiting market exposure.
The complaint also accuses the bank of concealing and making false statements about its scheme from OneChicago and CME Group, Inc., the entity that exercised regulatory compliance for OneChicago. When asked to describe the trades to CME Group, the bank allegedly falsely stated that its trading activity was conducted at arm’s length, and concealed the fact that the strategy was created and managed by a group of RBC personnel.
“A fundamental purpose of the futures markets is to provide an arm’s-length mechanism for market participants to discover prices and shift risks associated with products traded in those markets,” added David Meister. “RBC not only designed and executed a wash sale scheme that undermined that purpose, it went a step further and misled the exchange into believing that its conduct was lawful.”
The CFTC is seeking monetary sanctions and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s regulations.
RBC has called the allegations “absurd,” and has promised to defend itself against “such baseless allegations,” said Elisa Barsotti, a spokeswoman for the bank.
To read more about the charges filed by the CFTC, see the Commission’s full press release at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6223-12.
If you have knowledge of Securities Fraud and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the CFTC whistleblower program, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tags: CFTC, CFTC whistleblower program, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, wash trades, whistleblower reward
Posted in Recent News, SEC Whistleblower Program, Uncategorized | Comments Off
Blowing the Whistle on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations
Tuesday, July 26th, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program provides for rewards for individuals who provide the government with information about violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977.
The FCPA was enacted in 1977 in an effort to end the practice of multinational corporations obtaining business abroad by bribing foreign officials. The Act covers any U.S. company or citizen doing business abroad. It covers foreign companies — and their directors, officers, stockholders, employees and agents — with reporting and registration requirements under the Securities and Exchange Acts as well as any foreign person or company acting within the United States.
The FCPA makes it unlawful to bribe a foreign government official to obtain or retain business. The Act prohibits U.S. companies and individuals from paying money or any other sort of inducement, including an offer or promise to pay money or anything of value, to a foreign official with the intent to influence a decision or action affecting that company’s business.
A foreign official is defined as “any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is the chief enforcement agency, with a coordinate role played by the SEC. The DOJ is responsible for all criminal enforcement and for civil enforcement of the anti-bribery provisions with respect to domestic concerns and foreign companies and nationals. The SEC, on the other hand, is responsible for civil enforcement of the anti-bribery provisions with respect to issuers.
The FCPA provides for criminal and civil penalties. The criminal penalties include fines on officers, directors, stockholders, employees and agents of up to $250,000 and up to five (5) years in prison. Meanwhile, corporations and other business entities can face criminal fines of up to $2 million, or alternatively twice the amount of ill-gotten profits. The civil fines under the FCPA include $10,000 against any violating company and individual. Moreover, the SEC may also require a disgorgement of profits.
In the past few years, prosecutions under the FCPA have dramatically increased. The SEC has established an enforcement unit, targeting violations of the FCPA by U.S. issuers. The DOJ has similarly assigned prosecutors and FBI agents exclusively to the FCPA. The federal authorities have also instituted more aggressive investigative tactics in their pursuit of FCPA violations.
The DOJ and the SEC recently settled with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for $71 million. J&J agreed to pay $21.4 million in criminal penalties as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. J&J additionally settled a related matter filed by the SEC agreeing to more than $48.6 million in disgorgement of profits and pre-judgment interest. The $71 million aggregate settlement by J&J registers as just the 10th largest FCPA-related settlement since 2008.
The top nine FCPA related settlements are as follows: (1) Siemens for $800 million in 2008; (2) KBR/ Halliburton for $579 million in 2009; (3) BAE for $400 million in 2010; (4) Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V. for $365 million in 2010; (5) Technip S.A. for $338 million in 2010; (6) JGC Corp. for $218.8 million in 2011; (7) Daimler AG for $185 million in 2010; (8) Alcatel-Lucent for $137 million in 2010; and (9) Panalpina for $81.8 million in 2010.
If you have knowledge of an FCPA violation or other securities law violations and would like to discuss the possibility of a whistleblower award under the SEC or CFTC whistleblower programs, please contact our whistleblower attorneys today. Kenney & McCafferty will consult with you about your case, without obligation. All communications with Kenney & McCafferty attorneys regarding your case are confidential and protected by attorney-client privilege.
Tags: Department of Justice, DOJ, FCPA, FCPA violation, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission whistleblower program, Securities law violations, whistleblower, whistleblower award, whistleblower reward
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
Tax Whistleblowers Must File within 30 Days of No Answer Letter
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011
In Friedland v Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2011-90), the United States Tax Court dismissed the IRS whistleblower’s appeal because it was not filed within thirty days of the date of the “no answer letter” sent to Friedland by the IRS Whistleblower Office. The Tax Court reiterated its ruling in Cooper – the “no answer letter” constitutes a final determination of a whistleblower claim.
Murray Friedland, a CPA, reported two corporations for tax violations in September 2009. On November 13, 2009, the IRS Whistleblower Office sent Friedland a letter explaining that it had reviewed and evaluated the claim and then said that prevailing law prevented it from explaining why a claim would be denied. Friedland found the letter confusing. He sent additional information about his claim to the Whistleblower Office, and he called for an explanation. The WO responded with three letters, one memorializing a conversation in which Friedland was told that he could write to the US Court of Federal Claims. The letters also confirmed that the WO would not change its determination about Friedland’s claim.
Friedland followed the suggestion of the WO and appealed to the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the appeal on May 26, 2010, because the CFC does not have jurisdiction to hear IRS whistleblower appeals. On June 18, 2010, Friedland filed an appeal with the Tax Court.
Friedland filed his appeal 217 days after the date of the first letter, the “no answer letter.” As decided in previous Tax Court rulings, the “no answer letter” is notice of a final determination that the IRS is denying the claim. Whistleblowers have thirty days from the date of the no answer letter to file their appeals. Because Friedland filed 217 days after the date of the no answer letter, the Tax Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the claim because it was filed too late.
With regard to Friedland’s obvious confusion about the appeal process, the Tax Court said, “We recognize that petitioner may have relied on the erroneous advice of the Whistleblower Office in filing his initial appeal with the Claims Court. . . We sympathize with the petitioner. We cannot expand our jurisdiction, however, even where the Commissioner provided bad advice.”
Kenney & McCafferty, P.C., has successfully represented IRS whistleblowers, even before the passage of the 2006 whistleblower statute. For knowledgeable and trustworthy representation, contact K&M for a free assessment today.
Tags: Abusive Tax Shelters, Corporate Tax Fraud, Employment Tax Fraud, Estate Tax Fraud, fraud reward, IRS whistle blower, IRS whistleblower, offshore tax fraud, Tax cheat, tax claims, tax court, tax evasion, Tax Fraud, tax petition, tax underpayment, tax whistle blower, tax whistleblower, tax whistleblower petition, whistleblower appeals, 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, retaliation, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
IRS Goes Viral?
Thursday, April 14th, 2011
One of many IRS YouTube offerings.
Not exactly, but the IRS has introduced its own YouTube channel, along with an array of audio products to help taxpayers take advantage of tax benefits available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. People can visit the site at www.youtube.com/irsvideos. The IRS YouTube channel caters to people of different backgrounds by offering videos in English, Spanish, and American Sign Language.
One video teaches viewers how to use the IRS Withholding Calculator. The IRS suggests that people who have more than one job or working spouses should especially check their withholding to ensure neither too much nor too little is being withheld. People can use the calculator to help determine if they should make adjustments. Another video of interest discusses the role of an interim appeals office and what taxpayers can expect from that office.
In another attempt to make the tax code more transparent to today’s filers, the IRS has also launched an ITunes podcast site featuring information about ARRA tax credits.
Unfortunately, the IRS tax whistleblower program has not been the subject of a YouTube video, at least not one produced by the IRS. However, interested tax fraud followers can go to YouTube and type in “irs whistleblower.” One of the results listed will be a video of an IRS Whistleblower Conference panel discussion starring K&M’s lead partner Brian Kenney.
Of course, if you would like to learn more about the IRS whistleblower program, there’s no need to look at YouTube at all. Call Kenney & McCafferty at 215-367-4333 for a free consult today.
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 | Comments Off
IRS To Hold Hearing on Definition of Collected Proceeds
Monday, April 4th, 2011
The IRS Should Target Large Corporations for Tax Fraud
The IRS has set May 11, 2011, as the hearing date for public comment on proposed regulations REG-131151-10 on the payment of rewards for whistleblowers. Chief among the areas of interest is the new definition of “collected proceeds.”
The proposed regulations do not make it clear whether corporations alleging a Net Operating Loss that is reduced by whistleblower information would result in an award for the whistleblower. Large corporations routinely rely on highly sophisticated tax experts to help them reduce their cash tax liability. The IRS’s proposed change in definition of “collected proceeds” appears to target individual taxpayers but fails to clearly identify large corporations who evade taxes. Tax underpayment by corporations, not individuals, should be the focus of the IRS. Corporations represent the greatest opportunity to capture much needed tax dollars for the US Treasury. Those blowing the whistle on large corporations should be incentivized to the same extent as those blowing the whistle on an individual taxpayer.
People who want to present oral comments at the hearing must submit a written outline of their comments to the IRS by April 19th. Each speaker will be allotted 10 minutes. The hearing will be held at the Internal Revenue Building at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, in Washington, D.C.
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, IRS Whistleblower Office, Money Laundering Tax Fraud, Offshore Accouts Fraud, Tax Fraud, Uncategorized | Comments Off
ACLU Loses Attack on Seal Provisions of FCA
Monday, March 28th, 2011
ACLU Loses Attack on FCA Seal
The ACLU lost its most recent attempt to strike down the seal provisions of the False Claims Act. The ACLU had lost its case in the Eastern District of Virginia and then appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Appellate Court affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the ACLU’s case.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in 2009, making a facial constitutional challenge to the long standing seal provisions of the FCA. The False Claims Act allows the qui tam plaintiff/relator to file the civil complaint under seal, which means the complaint is not served on the defendant until the seal is lifted by judicial order. The seal allows the government time to investigate the complaint without alerting defendants to the specific allegations. Depending on where the case is filed, the government frequently asks the judge for extensions of a sealed complaint to allow it more time to conduct its investigation. At some point, the complaint becomes unsealed.
The seal makes filing False Claims actions more attractive to whistleblowers because the whistleblowers enjoy anonymity while the government is conducting its investigation of the defendants. If the complaint is under seal, the defendant does not know that a whistleblower is involved and many times, does not know that it is being investigated. Whistleblowers who are current employees of a defendant that is committing government fraud are able to assist the government in its recovery of fraudulently obtained government funds without worrying unduly about retaliation for reporting the illegal conduct.
Oddly, the ACLU sought to strike down the seal provisions on the grounds that they acted against the whistleblower’s right to free speech, that the seal violated the public’s right of access to judicial proceedings, and that the seal impermissibly violated the doctrine of separation of powers. The ACLU was not able to point to a single whistleblower that agreed with the ACLU’s position, however, and admitted that it did not have much familiarity with the workings of a qui tam action.
The Fourth Circuit pointed out that seals are often ultimately lifted in qui tam cases and that the United States has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of ongoing fraud investigations. Kenney & McCafferty applauds the Courts’ rulings in this matter and looks forward to continuing working with qui tam relators in sealed government fraud investigations.
Tags: abuse, corruption, False claims, False Claims Act, FCA, fca seal, FERA, fraud reward, government fraud, government fraud recovery, Qui Tam, relator reward, whistle blowing, whistleblower, whistleblower reward
Posted in Corporate Tax Fraud, False Claims Act, Recent News, retaliation, Uncategorized, Whistleblower Protection | Comments Off
