(404) 609-1696

ATLANTA,GA

(404) 341-5314

DULUTH, GA

Whistleblower Blog

New Health Care Law Arrives With Announcement of $12 Million Recovery in Qui Tam Whistleblower Case Under False Claims Act

The major new “health care” law that the President signed this week, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), includes increased efforts to combat health care fraud and abuse, especially fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

It was significant that, on the very same day that this law took effect, an outstanding group of government prosecutors and investigators brought to an efficient conclusion a $12 million recovery of funds in a qui tam whistleblower case alleging health care fraud in violation of the False Claims Act. The case was brought by our firm, Finch McCranie, LLP, the Simpson Firm, LLC, and James G. Gustino, P.A..

The next day, after a meeting in Washington with the Department of Justice on another False Claims Act case, I sat in on the Senate debate of amendments to the new health care law. Whatever differing views may exist about many of the new law’s provisions, all taxpayers agree that stopping fraud in health care is an essential step to preserving scarce health care dollars.

We are proud to have been able to work with an excellent government team of lawyers and investigators in helping recover this $12 million for the American taxpayers. They are Renee Brooker and Eva Gunasekera of the Department of Justice, Ralph Hopkins of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, and Special Agent Robert Murphy of HHS-OIG.

A description of the case is below:

Melbourne Internal Medicine Associates (MIMA) of Brevard County, Florida, will pay $12 million to resolve a whistleblower lawsuit alleging hidden schemes to defraud Medicare and other federal programs in connection with radiation cancer treatment. This whistleblower case was successfully pursued by Finch McCranie, LLP and Simpson Law Firm, LLC, both of Atlanta.

After investigating the whistleblower’s claims, the U.S. Department of Justice joined the lawsuit and filed its own complaint alleging a sustained fraudulent course of conduct by the MIMA Cancer Center and its former Medical Director, Todd Scarbrough, MD. The government’s complaint contended that MIMA submitted millions of dollars of claims for radiation oncology services that were provided without required physician supervision, were never provided at all or were otherwise improper, and sought to hide the fraud through “sham” practices. The complaint also alleged that executives at MIMA were aware of a substantial number of the fraudulent billing practices.

“Health care fraud is incompatible with patient safety,” said Michael A. Sullivan, attorney with Finch McCranie, LLP, and author of the leading whistleblower blog https://www.whistleblowerlawyerblog.com. “These doctors were paid for personally supervising radiation treatments for cancer patients, but did not provide the supervision that they gave the appearance of providing. How would patients feel to learn that their doctor’s ‘supervision’ of a potentially dangerous radiation treatment was to set up an ‘autoreply’ to emailed images of the patients, which the doctor would not review at all, or would review too late to make adjustments before patients are irradiated? With growing concerns over how cancer patients can be overexposed to radiation even when physicians are supervising the procedures, how much harm can be caused when physicians fail to provide the personal supervision that they are paid to provide?”
(more…)

Continue Reading

Greatest Impact of 2009 False Claims Act Amendments–“Civil Investigative Demands”

Among the many 2009 changes to strengthen the False Claims Act is one whose impact is about to be experienced: greater use of “civil investigative demands” to gather evidence.

Civil investigative demands allow to government to require any person believed to have documents or information relevant to a False Claims Act investigation to do the following:

(A) to produce such documentary material for inspection and copying,

(B) to answer in writing written interrogatories with respect to such documentary material or information,

(C) to give
(more…)

Continue Reading

Bank CEO’s Alleged TARP Fraud Results in First Reported Criminal Charges For Misuse of TARP Funds

We have written previously about how the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP) that began with the financial meltdown in 2008 would undoubtedly beget fraud that may be actionable under the False Claims Act. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, the country’s major whistleblower law, allow whistleblowers (“relators”) who report fraud or false claims to share in the government’s recovery of damages.

Yesterday, the first TARP fraud criminal charges appeared. Federal prosecutors in New York’s Southern District announced the arrest of Charles J. Antonucci, Sr., former President and Chief Executive Officer of The Park Avenue Bank.

The criminal complaint filed on March 13, as summarized by prosecutors, alleges “self-dealing, bank bribery, embezzlement of bank funds, and fraud, among others. ANTONUCCI also was alleged to have attempted to fraudulently obtain more than $11 million worth of taxpayer rescue funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. ANTONUCCI is the first defendant ever charged with attempting to defraud TARP. Additionally, ANTONUCCI was alleged to have used The Park Avenue Bank in a scheme to defraud two pastors of a Florida congregation out of more than $100,000 set aside to build a new church.”

Antonucci likely will not be the last former bank executive to have to surrender his passport and post bond. If it were not for the dearth of restrictions on permissible uses of TARP funds–which has provoked outrage as TARP recipients paid large bonuses–more TARP cases for “misuse” of TARP funds would have appeared by now. (We received many calls from potential TARP whistleblowers interested in bringing cases under the False Claims Act).

Nonetheless, Antonucci’s case alleges some of the more traditional types of fraud that will be prosecuted as they undoubtedly surface in the TARP program, especially as more TARP whistleblowers come forward.

With the billions used to fund TARP, those TARP whistleblowers may be motivated by the prospect of receiving 15-25% of money that the government recovers when the whistleblowers use the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act to pursue TARP fraud.

The government’s full announcement is reprinted below.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Iraq Reconstruction Fraud Continues to Fuel Investigations by Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

As if the nation’s expenditures to rebuild Iraq were not enough, fraud that steals taxpayer dollars continues to infect the Iraq reconstruction program. This fraud often results in qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act, which allows those reporting the fraud to receive a a share of the government’s recovery of money.

Today’s New York Times piece by James Glanz reports on the more than 50 new fraud investigations in the past six months alone in the Iraq reconstruction effort.

The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is responsible for these investigations. “Chaos, weak oversight and wide use of cash payments in the reconstruction program in Iraq allowed many more Americans who took bribes or stole money to get off scot-free,” in Mr. Glanz’s words.

Fortunately, 2009 changes to strengthen the False Claims Act, the country’s primary whistleblower law, will allow whistleblowers reporting fraud to do so more effectively so that they may share in the dollars recovered.
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblower Program and Confidentiality of IRS Investigations of Whistleblower Claims

One of the most interesting and challenging issues in representing IRS whistleblowers is how this promising new IRS Whistleblower Program can co-exist with the limits Congress has imposed on disclosure of taxpayer information–which includes what the IRS does in pursuing claims brought by whistleblowers.

I wanted to pass along that Michelle M. Kwon, Assistant Professor of Law at Texas Tech Law School, has written a law review article about this subject. It discusses recommendations for allowing information to be shared more with whistleblowers
(more…)

Continue Reading

Next IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp Is Planned for April 2010

We have written about the highly successful 2009 IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp in Washington, D.C. The IRS Whistleblower Office gathered with attorneys representing whistleblowers for this conference to discuss in detail many of the issues that arise in representing IRS whistleblowers, persons who report tax fraud or tax noncompliance. This conference is sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud.

Planning for the 2010 IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp on April 27, 2010 in Washington is underway, and it should be at least as successful and
(more…)

Continue Reading

Georgia Psychiatric Hospitals: Justice Department Suit for Immediate Relief to Protect Patients

The Justice Department has just announced that, to protect patients from harm in seven Georgia psychiatric hospitals, its Civil Rights Division has filed for relief including immediate appointment of a monitor to protect those patients.

DOJ cited the threat to patients of “imminent and serious threat of harm to their lives, health and safety.”

The seven hospitals include East Central Regional Hospital, Georgia Regional Hospital at Savannah, Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta, Southwestern State Hospital, Central State Hospital, West Central Georgia Regional Hospital, and Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital.

The announcement is repinted below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblower Office Prepares to Make Awards to IRS Whistleblowers Under New Program

Since Congress authorized new awards to IRS whistleblowers in December 2006, we have followed closely the progress of the new IRS Whistleblower Office led by Director Stephen Whitlock.

IRS Whistleblower Office Director Stephen Whitlock has just announced that the IRS Whistleblower Office is preparing to make award determinations on whistleblower claims submitted under the “new” rewards program.

The IRS Whistleblower Office (and no doubt the IRS Chief Counsel’s Office) have been working on “guidance” for determining the amount of awards within the range authorized by law.

We have written extensively on many of the issues that have arisen and will arise in handling IRS Whistleblower claims. Recent multi-million dollar payments apparently relate to claims under the “old” program. Those payments are encouraging signs of the success of the new program, which authorizes a higher range of awards of 15-30% of the recovery by the IRS.

Tax Analysts reported on Director Whitlock’s comments at the recent ABA meeting.

We are encouraged that the steady progress of the IRS Whistleblower Office continues, as this promises to be an extremely successful program to discourage tax cheats. Only meaningful rewards to whistleblowers will accomplish that goal.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Taxation of Qui Tam Whistleblower Awards by IRS Addressed by Tax Court

How does the IRS treat whistleblowers who receive awards under the False Claims Act’s “qui tam” provisions, which allow private citizens who expose fraud to share in the government’s recovery of money?

The Tax Court this week addressed that question. It held that awards to whistleblowers or “relators” are part of “gross income” and thus are taxable, but that the whistleblower nonetheless may deduct the attorney’s fees paid as a miscellaneous itemized deduction.

Thus, no income taxes were owed on that portion of the whistleblower’s award that was paid as attorney’s fees to the whistleblower’s attorney.

This result not only makes sense, but also is consistent with precedent. Since the whistleblower would have had no recovery but for the attorney’s efforts, it would be unfair to conclude otherwise.

The case is ALBERT D. CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, decided January 21, 2010. It is reprinted below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

Health Care Fraud Lawyers Gather to Discuss Amendments to False Claims Act and Other Whistleblower Developments

Attorneys from across the country will gather tomorrow in Atlanta to discuss health care fraud and the 2009 amendments to the False Claims Act, the nation’s primary whistleblower statute.

I am pleased to be on the panel discussing “False Claims Act Developments,” moderated by Jack Boese of Fried Frank. This will be a particularly interesting year for this annual meeting, as Congress enacted major changes to the False Claims Act that took effect on May 20, 2009.

In addition, the “Health Care Fraud Enforcement Act” pending in the Senate would enhance further the government’s tools used to investigate and remedy Medicare and Medicaid fraud. This bill would remove any question that all payments made pursuant to illegal kickbacks are “false” for purposes of the False Claims Act.

Among the significant 2009 changes to the False Claims Act made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act are the following:

1. The amendments expanded the definition of “claim,” and fraud directed against government contractors, grantees, and other recipients is now plainly covered by the False Claims Act.

2. Funds administered by the United States government (e.g., in Iraq) are now protected.

3. Retaining overpayments of money from the government is now a stated basis of liability, which is a source of concern for health care providers, among others.

4. Liability for “conspiracy” to violate the Act is now broader.

5. Protection of whistleblowers and others against “retaliation” now extends not only to “employees,” but also to “contractors” and “agents”; and persons other than “employers” potentially may be liable for retaliation.

6. In investigations, the government now has authority to use “Civil Investigative Demands” more broadly, and to share information more with state and local authorities and with whistleblowers/relators.

7. A standard definition of what is “material” now applies in False Claims Act cases.

8. The statute of limitations has been clarified for when the government asserts its own claims, after the whistleblower (or “relator”) has filed a qui tam case under the False Claims Act.

The full agenda for tomorrow’s “SOUTHEASTERN HEALTH CARE FRAUD INSTITUTE” is below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

Health Care Industry and 2009-2010 Changes to False Claims Act

The health care industry is adjusting to major changes to the nation’s major “whistleblower” law, the False Claims Act.

Both in 2009 and 2010, Congress has removed obstacles to whistleblowers’ use of this anti-fraud statute to address Medicare and Medicaid fraud, as well as fraud affecting every other federal program. As we have written about previously, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”) overruled key judicial decisions that had undermined the the False Claims Act’s effectiveness.

This year, the landmark health
(more…)

Continue Reading

Offshore Tax Evasion Scheme to Defraud IRS Alleged in Indictment of Miami Beach Developers

A high priority for IRS Whistleblower cases is the abuse of offshore “tax havens” or offshore financial centers to conceal income from the IRS that is subject to U.S. taxation. Over drinks in Miami Beach recently with IRS agents who worked the massive UBS matter, I discussed some of the recent announced cases the IRS has made involving offshore abuses.

Using shell corporations and “nominee” entities established in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, or a host of other countries that market “secrecy,” those looking to conceal income from the IRS, or assets from potential creditors, have made offshore tax havens a booming business.

An interesting example of allegations of offshore tax violations was described in the Justice Department’s announcement yesterday of the indictment of two Miami Beach hotel developers. Mauricio Cohen Assor and his son, Leon Cohen-Levy. They were charged with conspiring to defraud the United States and filing false tax returns. The government alleged as follows:

According to court documents, the two men and their co-conspirators used nominees and shell companies formed in tax haven jurisdictions, including the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, Panama, Liechtenstein and Switzerland to conceal their assets and income from the IRS. In order to further conceal their assets and income from the IRS, court documents state the men also provided false and forged documents to banks, opened bank accounts in the name of nominees, titled their personal residences and luxury vehicles in the name of shell companies, filed false and fraudulent tax returns, failed to file other tax returns, suborned perjury in a civil matter pending before the New York Supreme Court by directing individuals to testify falsely under oath, and induced other individuals to make false statements to federal law enforcement agents.

Both defendants are permanent resident aliens who, in 2000, received approximately $33 million from the sale of the New York Flatotel, according to the government. They transferred the proceeds using various Swiss bank accounts in the names of foreign nominee entities, including at least one “bearer share” corporation.

When bearer shares are used, the corporation’s records do not list its owners, as the owners are whoever has physical possession of the stock certificates. As IRS Special Agent Scott Johnson testified by affidavit, “[b]earer share corporations are often used to hide the true ownership of assets because ownership records are not maintained and nominee officers and directors are often used to control the affairs of the corporation.’

Later, the defendants allegedly transferred the funds to accounts of nominee companies at that bank’s New York location, and later to the escrow account of a Florida attorney. The government also alleged that defendants used the money to “fund a luxury lifestyle for themselves and for their family members.”

Offshore tax abuse remains a great priority of the IRS, and thus is a major focus of many IRS Whistleblower claims. The new IRS Whistleblower Program recognizes that whistleblowers have an enforceable right to 15-30% of what the IRS recovers based on information whistleblowers provide.

The government’s full press release is below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

More Details of UBS Whistleblower Birkenfeld’s Prosecution Explained in Washington Post

The Sunday, May 15, 2010 Washington Post will include more details on a perplexing question we have written about: how did UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld get himself prosecuted for a felony, and earn a prison sentence, while he sought to become an IRS whistleblower?

The story by David S. Hilzenrath explains more of the “dance” between Birkenfeld and prosecutors as he apparently partially told the government what he knew about wrongdoing at UBS.

Birkenfeld blew an opportunity to avoid prosecution for his
(more…)

Continue Reading

Should SEC Whistleblowers Have Right to Share in Recoveries That They Cause?

Congress is at a crossroads in deciding whether there will be a meaningful SEC Whistleblower Program–for the first time.

At this morning’s Offshore Alert conference in Miami, we heard from the SEC Chair’s Senior Advisor Stephen Cohen on this subject, as well as insight from IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock on how the IRS Whistleblower Program is now designed to encourage whistleblower claims.

As we have observed previously about the bills that would create an SEC Whistleblower program, past experience shows that an enforceable right to a meaningful reward is essential to cause whistleblowers to come forward.

The SEC apparently resists guaranteeing whistleblowers a minimum percentage of dollars recovered, as evidenced by the House version of the bill that lacks this feature. The SEC’s Steve Cohen explained that the SEC does not wish to commit funds that might otherwise go to harmed investors. He nonetheless contended that the SEC’s proposal may be better for whistleblowers because it pays from a special fund designated for this purpose, based on sanctions imposed, not collected.

Compare the experiences of the Justice Department and the IRS, however. When each had whistleblower statutes that provided no meaningful right to a reward, whistleblower claims were small and few. We have written extensively about the dramatic successes of the False Claims Act since its rewards increased to meaningful levels in 1986.

Likewise, IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock described again today how large whistleblower claims have exploded since December 2006, when Congress doubled rewards to whistleblowers to 15-30%, and created an enforceable right to those rewards.

History proves that most whistleblowers simply will remain silent, without a right to meaningful rewards. The SEC will be dividing a small pie unless Congress again embraces this principle.

To protect investors, those with information about fraud must have every incentive to speak up–as early as possible–and to be heard. The Madoff debacle proved that point.

In our experience in representing whistleblowers in the financial industry, the Senate’s version of the SEC whistleblower changes is highly preferable. It creates a right to awards of 10-30%.

There are still glaring deficiencies, such as the provisions excluding auditors who have tried unsuccessfully to call attention to fraud within the organizations and auditing firms involved. It will be an interesting next few weeks as Congress debates the final result.
(more…)

Continue Reading

State False Claims Acts Must Be Updated to Include New False Claims Act Changes, Grassley Warns

Senator Chuck Grassley is making sure that the States take advantage of important, recent improvements to the federal False Claims Act–with the help of financial incentives. In doing so, Grassley highlighted a defect in Oklahoma’s False Claims Act that should disqualify any state with a similar defect from these financial incentives.

As we have discussed at length, in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Congress recognized how effective the False Claims has been in recovering money for fraud against the government, by creating financial incentives for states that enact equally effective versions of the federal False Claims Act.

“Weaker” state versions of the False Claims Act do not qualify for the incentives, however. The Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services must approve a state’s False Claims Act before the incentives are available. So far, the IG has approved fourteen state FCAs, while disapproving six other state acts.

Since then, Congress has closed loopholes in the False Claims Act exploited by those who steal taxpayer funds. The 2009 Fraud Enforcement Recovery Act made significant improvements to strengthen the nation’s major whistleblower law, as we have summarized before. In March 2010, Congress modified the False Claims Act’s “public disclosure” and “original source” provisions as part of the major health care overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

This week, Grassley asked the Inspector General and Attorney General to review existing state False Claims Acts to ensure that they comply with these recent improvements to the federal False Claims Act.

“Updated information will help states fine tune existing state laws and state-level proposals, in order to be eligible for the federal incentive and beef up fraud-fighting efforts,” Grassley said. “This kind of effort at the state and federal level is more important than ever as Medicaid programs are expanded and face new burdens and growing fiscal challenges. Every dollar lost to fraud is one less dollar for those who depend on the program and harms the sustainability of the Medicaid program.”
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblower Office Announces Important Changes, New Procedures for IRS Whistleblower Program

IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock announced important, long-awaited developments in the new IRS Whistleblower Program yesterday at the Second Annual “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” in Washington.

First, Director Whitlock finally announced how the IRS will share information that will allow whistleblowers to understand the Whistleblower Office’s decisions about what awards are made to whistleblowers.

A year ago in my interview with the IRS Whistleblower Office Director, Mr. Whitlock discussed the need to solve the vexing question of how the IRS can share this information with whistleblowers and their attorneys, while also complying with legal requirements for confidentiality of taxpayer information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The new procedures described yesterday for what will happen with IRS Whistleblower claims–once the IRS has recovered money as a result of a whistleblower claim– are as follows:

1. After the Whistleblower Office receives a report from the IRS Operating Division that handled the matter, the Whistleblower Office Analyst will review the files and recommend an award to the whistleblower.

2. That recommendation then will go to the Whistleblower Office Director for review and approval.

3. A summary of the award recommendation then will be provided to the whistleblower and the whistleblower’s attorney for comment. That summary will identify:

(a) the amount of money collected by the IRS based on information provided by the whistleblower;

(b) the recommended award percentage to the whistleblower (15-30% of the funds recovered, unless an exception under the statute applies to lower the percentage);

(c) the factors considered by the IRS Whistleblower Office in reaching the recommended percentage;

(d) the recommended award amount; and

(e) the whistleblower’s options upon learning of this recommendation.

In welcome news to whistleblower attorneys, the IRS Whistleblower office also will make available a “detailed” award recommendation to whistleblowers and their attorneys who sign a confidentiality agreement. The whistleblower and counsel then may review in person (but not copy) the documents in the IRS administrative file that are the basis of the award recommendation, and comment to the Director about the award. Violation of the confidentiality agreement will lead to reduction of the award.

The new procedures are to be published in the Internal Revenue Manual in June 2010, and later will be included in regulations, with an opportunity for notice and comment.
(more…)

Continue Reading

New IRS Whistleblower Program Developments Discussed This Week at “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp”

On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, the Second Annual “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” will convene in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud.

Representatives of the IRS Whistleblower Office will discuss the latest developments in the IRS Whistleblower Program, though which tax whistleblowers can receive up to 30% of recoveries by the IRS. Other IRS and DOJ representatives will take part as well, as they analyze what lawyers representing IRS whistleblowers should know in pursuing these claims.

Like last year’s program, this one is a sell-out. I am looking forwarding once again to moderating a panel discussion, this time on “Protecting IRS Whistleblowers from Criminal and Civil Liability.”

Among the important new developments to be discussed is the “clarification” issued in February 2010, on what contacts the IRS may have with whistleblowers (or “informants”) who are current employees of taxpayers who are the subject of whistleblower claims. (The full notice is reprinted below.)

We expect there may be other major new developments to report at this year’s IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp. We will update you upon returning from D.C. this week.
(more…)

Continue Reading

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Synthetic CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages

As Congress finally works to establish a more meaningful SEC whistleblower program, the SEC has just announced that it has charged Goldman Sachs and one of its vice presidents with fraud, in connection with a “financial product tied to subprime mortgages, as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter.”

Often maligned for failing to protect investors before the recent financial crisis, the SEC now charges that Goldman structured and marketed a “synthetic collateralized debt obligation” (CDO) like those that “contributed to the recent financial crisis by magnifying losses associated with the downturn in the United States housing market,” and then violated the federal securities laws in connection with that product.

The SEC’s Complaint alleges a “securities fraud action against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS&Co”) and a GS&Co employee, Fabrice Tourre (‘Tourre’), for making materially misleading statements and omissions in connection with a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) GS&Co structured and marketed to investors. This synthetic CDO, ABACUS 2007AC1, was tied to the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and was structured and marketed by GS&Co in early 2007 when the United States housing market and related securities were beginning to show signs of distress.”

The Complaint further charges:

Undisclosed in the marketing materials and unbeknownst to investors, a large hedge fund, Paulson & Co. Inc. (“Paulson”), with economic interests directly adverse to investors in the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO, played a significant role in the portfolio selection process. After participating in the selection of the reference portfolio, Paulson effectively shorted the RMBS portfolio it helped select by entering into credit default swaps (“CDS”) with GS&Co to buy protection on specific layers of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 capital structure. Given its financial short interest, Paulson had an economic incentive to choose RMBS that it expected to experience credit events in the near future. GS&Co did not disclose Paulson’s adverse economic interests or its role in the portfolio selection process in the term sheet, flip book, offering memorandum or other marketing materials provided to investors.

In sum, GS&Co arranged a transaction at Paulson’s request in which Paulson heavily influenced the selection of the portfolio to suit its economic interests, but failed to disclose to investors, as part of the description of the portfolio selection process contained in the marketing materials used to promote the transaction, Paulson’s role in the portfolio selection process or its adverse economic interests.

The full SEC anouncement is reprinted below.
(more…)

Continue Reading

SEC Whistleblower Program–The SEC Inspector General’s Report

Post-Madoff, we have followed the legislative efforts to help establish an effective SEC whistleblower program. We know that the Senate Banking Committee in particular has worked hard in attempting to devise the best overall arrangement to encourage and reward whistleblowers who report fraud within the SEC’s jurisdiction.

Shortly before Congress authorized the first meaningful IRS Whistleblower Program in December 2006, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration issued its report on many of the changes needed for the IRS to use whistleblowers effectively.

Now, the SEC’s Inspector General David Kotz has issued his report, “Assessment of the SEC Bounty Program.” No one is surprised that it concludes that the SEC has not effectively encouraged, used, or rewarded whistleblowers over the past decades. Perhaps this report will pave the way for something meaningful–like the TIGTA report that preceded the now-promising IRS Whistleblower Program, which rewards whistleblowers with 15-30% of the government’s tax recoveries.

The SEC report recommends adopting the “best practices obtained from DOJ and the IRS into the SEC bounty program.” The SEC Inspector General’s report states as follows:

Although the SEC has had a bounty program in-place for more than 20 years for rewarding whistleblowers for insider trading tips and complaints, our review found that there have been very few payments made under this program.
Likewise, the Commission has not received a large number of applications from individuals seeking a bounty over this 20-year period. We also found that the program is not widely recognized inside or outside the Commission. Additionally,
while the Commission recently asked for expanded authority from Congress to reward whistleblowers who bring forward substantial evidence about other significant federal securities law violations, we found that the current SEC bounty program is not fundamentally well-designed to be successful.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Well Worth a Read: SEC Whistleblower Harry Markopolos’ “No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller”

After meeting with the Department of Justice in Washington recently to discuss another whistleblower case, I picked up Harry Markopolos’ recent book, “No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller.” It is a fun and engrossing read, with humor that I did not expect to find in this subject.

We have written previously to applaud Harry Markopolos’ work in figuring out Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and then in trying to get the SEC’s attention for years. In an era when fraud is being exposed in so many industries through the courage of whistleblowers, his book shows just how paper-thin our government’s resources can be in recognizing and stopping the next huge fraud scheme.

Neither I nor my law firm has any financial interest in recommending this book, and no one has asked me to mention it, but I do believe that any thinking person will enjoy it.
(more…)

Continue Reading