Whistleblower Blog

Iraq Whistleblowers Coming Forward, as Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Estimates Billions in Fraud and Waste

March 23, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Whistleblowers reporting fraud by contractors in Iraq reconstruction are coming forward, reports Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The relatively calmer conditions in Iraq apparently are a factor in more whistleblowers coming forward, he believes.

From the $21 billion Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, billions have been lost, according to Bowen.

“Thirty-two billion dollars later, we don’t know a whole lot about what’s happened to that money,” Bowen said.

“The actual reconstruction money, I estimate 15 to 20 percent has been wasted. Roughly $3-$4 billion,” he said. Many projects have been plagued by waste and poor design.

“Millions [have been] wasted at the Baghdad police college because of extremely shoddy construction,” Bowen said.

Iraq reconstruction whistleblowers may receive rewards of 15-30% of the fraud or false claims reported by using the False Claims Act, the major whistleblower law that we have written about often. They may also potentially use the IRS Whistleblower Program to obtain rewards, since illegal activity often results in tax violations.

In this age when fraud and abuse are depleting taxpayer funds, any whistleblower who steps forward to report fraud or other impropriety in the Iraq reconstruction is to be commended.
(more…)

The AIG Whistleblowers Begin to Speak About Its Credit Default Swaps?

March 18, 2009
Michael Sullivan

The facts about how the AIG Financial Products unit took down AIG begin to emerge more clearly, as AIG whistleblowers begin to speak.

Former AIG auditor Joseph St. Denis described his concerns about AIG’s Financial Products unit–and how AIGFP’s Joseph Cassano refused to let him investigate:

“Mr. Cassano shouted at me for several minutes, and then said, as previously noted: ‘I have deliberately excluded you from the valuation of the Super Seniors because I was concerned that you would pollute the process.”

More to
(more…)

Appreciating Harry Markopolis, the Madoff “Whistleblower” to the SEC

March 16, 2009
Michael Sullivan

I had the pleasure of seeing again and speaking last week with Harry Markopolis, the “whistleblower” now renowned for his excellent work in recognizing and reporting to the SEC that Bernie Madoff was running a huge Ponzi scheme. Harry was in Washington attending the “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud.

Harry Markopolis exemplifies the whistleblower who works diligently to “do the right thing.” His appearance on 60 Minutes gave us a taste of his frustration over the years in attempting to
(more…)

IRS Whistleblower Attorneys Join IRS Whistleblower Office Director and Other IRS Officials for “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp”

March 9, 2009
Michael Sullivan

I spent a very productive day today with IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock, former IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson, IRS Special Counsel Tom Kane, and other senior IRS officials working with the IRS Whistleblower Office, in helping stage the most comprehensive legal education program yet about the new IRS Whistleblower Program–the “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp.” The day-long event was sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud.

After sessions on various aspects of how the tax whistleblower program operates, I was honored to lead the panel discussion with Director Whitlock and others on some difficult and complex issues in representing whistleblowers. We discussed in depth claims by whistleblowers such as CPAs, lawyers, and fiduciaries who have had confidential relationships with the taxpayers in question; and claims by whistleblowers who were involved in misconduct. Joining our panel discussion were Special Counsel Tom Kane of the Office of Chief Counsel, and my friend and fellow whistleblower attorney Paul D. Scott of San Francisco.Whistleblower Lawyer Blog Co-Author Michael A. Sullivan (left) moderates the panel discussion with IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock (right).

Director Whitlock explained how the claims submitted to the two year-old IRS Whistleblower Office have grown from approximately 80 in the first year, to approximately 2000 at present.

The IRS officials reviewed offshore tax schemes, tax fraud and tax evasion, and many other types of tax noncompliance as potential bases of IRS Whistleblower claims.The IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp began with “IRS Whistleblower Office 101,” a panel discussion introducing the applicable regulations, providing an overview of the IRS Whistleblower Office, and providing an update on the progress of the program. It was moderated by TAF Member Margaret Finerty, and included as panelists Director Steve Whitlock, and IRS Whistleblower Office Analysts Robert Gardner, Dawn Applebaum, and Al Gibson. (Dawn Applebam had joined me last week in Atlanta to make an excellent presentation on the IRS Whistleblower Program at the annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium” that our firm sponsors.)

The main domestic and international tax fraud schemes, and the types of cases the IRS Whistleblower Office would like to receive, were the subject of a discussion by former IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson. The panelists were IRS “Subject Matter Experts” Larry Brongel (Large and Mid-sized Business Division (LMSB), Retailers, Food, Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare Industry); Sheila Olander (Sr. Analyst Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigative Division, Office of Financial Crimes); Elizabeth Elfrey (Director, Fraud/Bank Secrecy Act in the IRS Small Business/Self Employed (SBSE)); and Al Gibson (Whistleblower Office Analyst).

TAF member Frederick Morgan, and attorney and CPA Ralph Minto, then discussed expanding a False Claims Act practice to include IRS Whistleblower cases.

TAF President Neil Getnick led a panel discussion on issue-spotting and practice pointers when bringing IRS Whistleblower cases. The panelists were Director Steve Whitlock, Special Counsel Tom Kane, and TAF Member and fellow whistleblower attorney Brian Kenney.
(more…)

False Claims Act Amendments Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee As Part of FERA (Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act) Today

March 5, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Today, we were excited to hear that the Senate Judiciary Committee has sent long-needed amendments to the False Claims Act to the full Senate, as part of the “bailout” and “stimulus” inspired “Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act” (FERA).

Where there are taxpayer funds being spent, there will be attempts to engage in fraud to cheat the public. As hundreds of billions of dollars are poured into federal and state programs through the “economic stimulus” package, the continuation of the Troubled Assets Relief Program
(more…)

Whistleblower Attorneys to Discuss Qui Tam Cases Under False Claims Act, IRS Whistleblower Program, and Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases at Annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium”

March 1, 2009
Michael Sullivan

I am very excited about co-chairing the Annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium” once again this week.

From Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Antonio, and Washington, D.C., many of the country’s leading attorneys in whistleblower cases under the “qui tam” statute, the False Claims Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley statute, and the IRS Whistleblower Program will gather in Atlanta on March 4 to discuss some of the more challenging aspects of representing whistleblowers (or defending against whistleblower claims) under these laws.

We are honored to have one of the officials of the IRS Whistleblower Office, Dawn Applebaum, join us in person to discuss the progress of the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program. The IRS Whistleblower Office has just celebrated its second anniversary.

We are also privileged to have the top state enforcement officials in health care fraud cases from Texas, Florida, and Georgia, to explain how they coordinate state and federal health care fraud whistleblower cases under the federal and state False Claims Acts.

Also joining us is Rep. Edward Lindsey, the Legislative Sponsor both of the Georgia State False Medicaid Claims Act, and recent legislation to solidify Georgia’s Office of State Inspector General.

Because of the wave of new whistleblower statutes that have been inspired by the successes of the False Claims Act, our firm instituted the Whistleblower Law Symposium. Once again, top-notch speakers will address a broad variety of issues that arise under these whistleblower laws, including:

–Whistleblowers in Health Care: Recent Cases and Strategies for Healthcare Providers and Counsel When a Whistleblower Calls

–Recent Developments in Qui Tam Cases Under the False Claims Act-The Relator’s Perspective
–Current Issues in Defending Qui Tam Claims
–Coordinating State and Federal Whistleblower Cases Under the State and Federal False Claims Acts-Current Priorities and Recent Results
–Federal Priorities and Procedures in Qui Tam Cases
–Plaintiffs’ & Defendants’ Approaches to Sarbanes-Oxley Claims
–Update on the IRS Whistleblower Program

We are fortunate to have such excellent faculty members from around the country join us. Our faculty members and their topics are listed below.
(more…)

UBS Agrees to Pay $780 Million & Identify Customers in IRS Tax Fraud Case

February 18, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Off-shore tax evasion and international tax avoidance schemes are priorities of the IRS and the IRS Whistleblower program, which rewards tax whistleblowers. Our whistleblower lawyer blog has followed the ongoing investigation of UBS for its activities, which took a major turn today.

Today, the government announced that UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank, has admitted to helping U.S. taxpayers hide accounts from the IRS. UBS has agreed to identify its customers and to pay $780 million, as part of a “deferred prosecution agreement” on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS.

Based on an order by the Swiss Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (FINMA), UBS agreed “to immediately provide the United States government with the identities of, and account information for, certain United States customers of UBS’s cross-border business.” UBS also agreed to stop providing banking services to U.S. clients with undeclared accounts.

In 2000, after UBS purchased the brokerage firm Paine Webber, UBS entered into an agreement with the IRS to report income and other identifying information for its U.S. clients who held United States securities in a UBS account, according to the government. The government alleged that UBS was required to withhold income taxes from U.S. clients.

To evade those new reporting requirements, the government alleged that employees and managers within the cross-border business, with the knowledge of certain UBS executives, helped U.S. taxpayers open new UBS accounts in the names of nominees and/or sham entities. Assets of the individual’s accounts were then moved to the new accounts, and the U.S. taxpayer would not be identified as a beneficiary, according to the government.

UBS managers and employees also reportedly used encrypted laptops and other counter-surveillance techniques to help prevent the detection of their marketing efforts and the identities and offshore assets of their U.S. clients. Clients of the cross-border business allegedly filed false tax returns omitting the income earned on their Swiss bank accounts, and failed to disclose the existence of those accounts to the IRS.
(more…)

Pharma Manufacturer in Medicaid Fraud Case Ordered to Pay Millions by Wisconsin Jury

February 18, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Hidden schemes to defraud Medicare and state Medicaid programs of scarce taxpayer dollars are at the heart of many whistleblower cases under the federal and state False Claims Acts.

This morning, Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen announced that a Dane County, Wisconsin jury has just declared that a pharmaceutical manufacturer defrauded the Wisconsin Medicaid program by reporting grossly inflated and fraudulent prices.

Pfizer was on the receiving end of the health care fraud verdict, which may result in more than $153
(more…)

Wall Street Financial Industry “Bailout” Whistleblowers Sought by–Michael Moore?

February 11, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Taking a brief break from “substantive” writing on this whistleblower lawyer blog, I could not help but briefly note this story today:

Filmmaker Michael Moore is seeking whistleblowers in the financial industry for his next film. He concludes “if you work for a bank, a brokerage firm or an insurance company — or if you have seen things or heard things that you believe the American people have a right to know — please contact me” via the email address posted on his blog.

Perhaps those whistleblowers should follow Sen. Grassley’s strong advice to use the qui tam whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act to report fraud and abuse in TARP or other “bailout” measures. Persons in the financial services industry already have contacted us to do just that, and some also have potential claims in the IRS Whistleblower Program.

Both the False Claims Act and the IRS Whistleblower law allow the private citizen whistleblowers to share in the government’s recovery of money wrongfully obtained, as we have written about extensively.

We anticipate that the “stimulus” package in Congress this week also will produce many opportunities for fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds, so that whistleblowers also will be important to deter those abuses through use of the False Claims Act and the IRS Whistleblower Program.
(more…)

TARP Apparently Overpaid for Bank Assets, According to Congressional Oversight Panel

February 6, 2009
Michael Sullivan

Those potential whistleblowers watching for TARP waste, fraud and abuse should note today’s report of the Congressional Oversight Panel. According to the report, the Treasury Department has received “far less value in stocks and warrants than the money it injected into financial institutions.”

The report, “Valuing Treasury Acquisitions,” concludes that Treasury paid “substantially more for the assets it purchased under the TARP than the market value of those assets” at the time this deal was announced. The Panel revealed that, in the ten
(more…)

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

Part 6: States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

December 7, 2010
Michael Sullivan

This Part 6 is the final installment of an article explaining why the major qui tam whistleblower statute, the federal False Claims Act, has led to a wave of new state False Claims Acts. It is an updated version of part of a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan.

V. States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

As noted, at least twenty-eight states now have a False Claims statute, and many other states are considering similar laws. The financial incentives of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 have not only prompted states that lacked False Claims statutes to enact them, but also have caused many states wishing to qualify for the additional funds to amend their existing False Claims statutes.

In essence, while states may enact “tougher” or more comprehensive laws than the federal False Claims Act, states with “weaker” or less effective laws-as judged by the standards of the Deficit Reduction Act-will not qualify for the additional funds.

Seven of the first ten states whose statutes were scrutinized by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) quickly learned this lesson when OIG disapproved their state statutes. These included California (which lacked a minimum penalty), Florida (which omitted “fraudulent” from its definition of claims), Indiana (which did not make defendants liable for “deliberate ignorance” and “reckless disregard”), Louisiana (which did not permit the state to intervene in cases, set too low a percentage for whistleblowers to recover, and set no minimum penalty), Michigan (which omitted penalties and liability for decreasing or avoiding an obligation to pay the government, i.e., a “reverse false claim”), Nevada (which had a statute of limitations too short and a minimum penalty too low), and Texas (which did not permit the whistleblower to litigate the case if the state did not, and which provided for lower percentage shares to whistleblowers and lower penalties). Most of these states have gone back to the drawing board to correct these deficiencies.

In sum, the Deficit Reduction Act has set minimum standards for state False Claims Acts for states wishing to receive these additional funds. In plain English, the state laws must protect at least Medicaid funds, and they must be at least as effective as the federal False Claims Act, especially in rewarding and facilitating qui tam actions for false or fraudulent claims, with damages and penalties no less than those under the federal Act.
(more…)

Insider Trading Probe Reinforces Immediate Need for Strongest SEC Whistleblower Program

November 21, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports a “sweeping” insider trading investigation, with civil and criminal charges soon to follow, involving “consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders, and analysts across the nation.”

While the details remain to be seen, the unending series of fraud cases that continue–despite Sarbanes-Oxley–proves why Wall Street must not be allowed to neuter the first potentially meaningful SEC whistleblower program, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

How is it that the hallowed “compliance programs” born from Sarbanes-Oxley have utterly failed to stop the breathtaking frauds of Madoff, Stanford, and other recent post-SOX scandals?

As many honest employees encountering fraud discover, too often “compliance programs” mask efforts to identify employees who object to wrongdoing, so the wrongdoers can then gut their careers.

How well did compliance programs work at the many Madoff-abetting feeder funds that made scores of millions, as Madoff’s scheme spread to snare more victims? Read Harry Markopolis’ book to see how many of those firms’ “compliance” efforts worked, as Madoff’s enablers ignored glaring warning signs that multiplied over the life of the scheme.

SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami seem dedicated to invigorating the SEC’s enforcement efforts. While the new proposed SEC whistleblower rules show considerable thought, they threaten the program’s effectiveness by bowing too far to industry concerns, and excluding many potential whistleblowers such as accountants, who may be the best position to stop the next Madoff.

Wall Street would have the SEC create a labyrinth of further exceptions to who can participate in the new SEC Whistleblower program. One lethal industry proposal is to require potential whistleblowers first to run the gauntlet of firms’ “compliance” programs–a concept wholly inconsistent with Congress’ intent that whistleblowers must be allowed to report violations anonymously.

The initial screening of SEC whistleblower claims should not be outsourced to the very firms alleged to have violated the law, which is what mandatory internal reporting effectively would do. The SEC–like the Department of Justice and IRS–should be the first to screen SEC whistleblower claims. With any SEC whistleblower claim large enough to pursue, by definition the culpable firm has typically approved the violation, or at least looked the other way.

Otherwise, who in a position to expose significant fraud would come forward, if required first to reveal their objections to the fraud to those who may have approved it? And if the fraud stays concealed–as it too often has despite “compliance” programs–the public loses.

Excerpts from the WSJ article by SUSAN PULLIAM, MICHAEL ROTHFELD,JENNY STRASBURG and GREGORY ZUCKERMAN are below:
(more…)

With New SEC Whistleblower Program Proposed Rules Announced, Will the SEC Allow Potential Defendants to Gut Them?

November 4, 2010
Michael Sullivan

We have been awaiting the SEC’s proposed rules for its new SEC Whistleblower Program, released yesterday. Even before the announcement, however, those who oppose this first potentially meaningful SEC Whistleblower Program have begun efforts to undermine it.

The SEC’s website already includes some firms’ suggestions to impose extreme restrictions on SEC whistleblowers–contrary to how other successful whistleblower programs operate.

Designing any new whistleblower program should begin with studying more than two decades of successes of the nation’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act has been so effective in uncovering and penalizing fraud against the government since 1986 that it has inspired Congress and the states to enact a wave of new whistleblower statutes–including the Dodd-Frank whistleblower mandate in section 922.

Unless the SEC seeks to create an ineffective program, it makes no sense to impose restrictions on whistleblowers that do not exist in False Claims Act cases.

One such damaging restriction would be requiring whistleblowers first to report within the company violations of the law, before going to the SEC. Past experience with the False Claims Act shows that warning violators of the law (who know their own violations) invites destruction of evidence by those who engineered the lawbreaking, and destroys the whistleblower’s career.

Other deceptive suggestions are that the SEC follow the “approach” of the promising new IRS Whistleblower Program–but with far greater restrictions on whistleblowing.

For example, one representative of future defendants urges what are actually variations on the “one-bite” and “no-bite” rules of the IRS, which historically have restricted the IRS’s receipt of certain information, or information from certain whistleblowers.

In fact, the IRS trend appears to be the opposite. In a March 2010 IRS Notice and in June 2010 changes to the Internal Revenue Manual, the “one-bite” rule appears to be giving way to the more sensible approach of allowing whistleblowers more than “one bite” at submitting information that may be useful to the IRS.

Likewise, a suggestion that the SEC adopt a variation the “no-bite” rule would expand it far beyond the IRS concept of not accepting information from the “taxpayer’s representative” before the IRS. This suggestion would go much further and prohibit submissions to the SEC by anyone who has a “fiduciary” duty to a public company–which arguably could be most or all employees.

We will comment further on the specifics of yesterday’s proposed rules, but the basic principles above should guide the SEC in what it finally decides.

The SEC’s announcement yesterday is reprinted below:
(more…)

Links to SEC Whistleblower and CFTC Whistleblower Lawyer Information

October 18, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Our whistleblower lawyer blog has followed closely the development of the first potentially meaningful SEC Whistleblower and Commodities Whistleblower Programs. That link provides regular updates.

Based on our firm’s long experience in representing whistleblowers, we were asked by the Senate Banking Committee staff for input in how the new SEC and CFTC whistleblower provisions of the July 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act should work. We urged that the Senate change the tepid House version, which provided no meaningful rewards to whistleblowers,
(more…)

SEC Recovers $39 Million under Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for Bribery and Kickbacks in Mexico and Iraq

September 29, 2010
Michael Sullivan

One of the most interesting twists to the new SEC Whistleblower Program will be how many commercial bribes and kickbacks paid to foreign government officials will now come to light. As we have written about previously, the SEC shares jurisdiction with the Justice Department over such cases that violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

An example of why whistleblowers will come forward is this afternoon’s announcement of the SEC’s $39 million settlement with ABB Ltd (“ABB”), a Swiss company that provides power and automation products and services.

The SEC alleged that ABB made more than $2.7 million in bribes and kickbacks to obtain more than $100 million in contracts. The payments allegedly were made to “government officials in Mexico to obtain business with government owned power companies,” and to the “former regime in Iraq to obtain contracts under the United Nations Oil for Food Program.”

According to the SEC, some of the kickbacks were made through bank guarantees and cash payments. As is common in disguising unlawful payments, the kickbacks were recorded on the company’s books as legitimate payments–here, for “after sales services,” “consultation costs,” and “commissions.”

ABB, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, agreed not only to pay disgorgement and penalties totalling more than $39 million, but also agreed to pay a criminal fine of $30,420,000, according to the SEC. The company also agreed to be bound by certain “undertakings” concerning its FCPA compliance program.

As to how an FCPA whistleblower might fare who reports similar FCPA violations of bribery of foreign government officials, the new SEC Whistleblower Program pays 10% to 30% of monetary sanctions collected–approximately $4 million to $12 million under similar facts.

The SEC’s announcement is reprinted in full below, and the SEC’s Complaint is linked here:
(more…)

Health Care Fraud Cases and 2009-2010 Amendments to False Claims Act Discussed at National Fraud and Compliance Forum

September 26, 2010
Michael Sullivan

At the annual Fraud and Compliance Forum in Baltimore that runs through Tuesday, the nation’s top health care lawyers will be paying close attention to recent changes to the nation’s primary whistleblower law, the False Claims Act. The “qui tam” provisions of the False Claims Act allow private citizen whistleblowers (“relators”) to share in the government’s recovery of damages.

As a former defense attorney who now represents whistleblowers, I have been asked to present a program at this conference with Rick Shackelford of King & Spalding, to discuss these major amendments to the False Claims Act–the first since 1986. Congress acted decisively in three recent major bills to restore the False Claims Act to its intended strength, in the face of court decisions that created obstacles to its use.

The recent amendments were part of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617 (“FERA”); the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (“PPACA”); and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (the “Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act”).

This week’s forum is sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association and Health Care Compliance Association.

An updated discussion of the False Claims Act after these 2009 and 2010 changes will appear soon on this Whistleblower Lawyer Blog. A brief summary of those important changes to the Act is below:
(more…)

Indiana Attorney General Invites Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases by Health Care & Pharmaceutical Employees To Stop Health Care Fraud

August 20, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Smart and effective state Attorneys General have fought fraud against their citizens through encouraging greater use of the country’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act, and state versions of that law.

Texas AG Greg Abbott, for example, has a staff that has long distinguished itself for recovering millions of stolen taxpayer funds in health care fraud cases, under the leadership of Pat O’Connell and, more recently, Ray Winter.

Following this tradition, Indiana AG Greg Zoeller is urging employees of pharmaceutical companies and heath care entities to help stop health care fraud, and possibly share in the recovery as qui tam whistleblowers under the state and federal False Claims Acts.

While we have discussed in detail how the False Claims Act operates, AG Zoeller’s announcement gives a succinct summary. We have reprinted it below, and applaud his efforts.
(more…)

Shouldn’t the IRS Pay Tax Whistleblowers Who Help Prevent Fraudulent Refunds?

August 18, 2010
Michael Sullivan

When IRS whistleblowers save U.S taxpayers money, they deserve the rewards that lawmakers such as Sen. Chuck Grassley fought to establish. In 2006 his efforts resulted in the first meaningful IRS Whistleblower program ever, which is attracting many tax whistleblowers with significant evidence.

We have discussed previously the many positive aspects of the long-awaited IRS Whistleblower procedures published in June–and one illogical, self-defeating feature. Some in the IRS–and apparently not the IRS Whistleblower Office–thought whistleblowers should not be rewarded when they report tax
(more…)

Merck and Other Pharma Companies Probed by DOJ and SEC in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Investigation

August 9, 2010
Michael Sullivan

When Pharma manufacturers are targeted by the Department of Justice, qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act are often the reason.

Now, whistleblowers may also receive rewards for reporting violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), thanks to the new whistleblower provisions of the Wall Street financial reform law. Announcements like Merck’s recent SEC filing that it is now the subject an FCPA investigation involving other Pharma companies should become common, as corruption will now be increasingly exposed in a new wave of SEC Whistleblower cases.

The recent 10-Q filing of Merck & Co., Inc. stated in part:

The Company has received letters from the DOJ and the SEC that seek information about activities in a number of countries and reference the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Company is cooperating with the agencies in their requests and believes that this inquiry is part of a broader review of pharmaceutical industry practices in foreign countries.

As we have followed through its development, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law created the new SEC Whistleblower and CFTC Whistleblower programs, which will include FCPA cases.

The FCPA, as we have discussed previously, prohibits bribery of foreign government officials in international business transactions, and false entries in books and records of those companies within the statute. Whistleblowers who assist the SEC recover monetary sanctions in FCPA cases now have an enforceable right to a monetary award of 10-30%.

Pharma’s exposure for any bribes and kickbacks abroad are a ripe subject for FCPA enforcement.
(more…)

Does SEC Whistleblower Reward of $1 Million Signal A New Attitude Toward Wall Street Whistleblowing?

August 8, 2010
Michael Sullivan

Only days after the new financial reform law created the first potentially meaningful awards for whistleblowers reporting securities and commodities violations and abuses, the SEC may have signaled a new attitude toward encouraging whistleblowers.

The SEC recently announced its first million dollar award for a whistleblower’s report of information about insider trading involving hedge fund adviser Pequot Capital Management, Inc., its chief executive, Arthur J. Samberg, and David E. Zilkha, a Microsoft employee.

Although $1 million may not sound like much when compared to the losses caused by the Madoffs of the world, it is a dramatic improvement over what the SEC had done before.

In following the development of the new SEC Whistleblower Program, we previously discussed the Inspector General’s summary of how, over the past eleven years, the SEC had paid a total of less than $160,000 to reward whistleblowers under the “old” SEC bounty program for whistleblowers. The IG reported:

The SEC bounty program has made very few payments to whistleblowers since its inception and received a relatively small number of bounty applications. As a result, the program’s success has been minimal and its existence is practically unknown.
Since the inception of the SEC bounty program in 1989, the SEC has paid a total of $159,537 to five claimants as detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Bounty Payments to Whistleblowers Bounty Claimant Year Bounty Amount 1) Claimant 1 1989 $3,500 2) Claimant 2 2001 $18,152 3) Claimant 3 2002 $29,079 4) Claimant 4 2005 $17,500 4) Claimant 4 2006 $29,920 4) Claimant 4 2009 $55,220 5) Claimant 5 2007 $6,166
Total $159,537
Source: OIG Generated

Just as another Inspector General’s report in 2006 set the stage for the successful new IRS Whistleblower Program that is attracting many reports of even billions in tax liability, let’s hope this Inspector General’s report has motivated the SEC to make full use of the opportunity to build a meaningful whistleblower program. We are already getting calls from potential Wall Street whistleblowers wishing to take advantage of it, and it could be a rewarding process–depending on how well the SEC seizes the opportunity.

The SEC’s recent announcement of the $1 million reward is reprinted below:
(more…)