Whistleblower Blog Archives - Page 12 of 35

Whistleblower Blog

The Most Significant Recent Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is the final section of my article. It discusses the most significant recent qui tam cases under the False Claims Act (as of December 2006).

B. Recent Significant Recoveries Under the False Claims Act:

1. Health Care Industry

a. Tenet Healthcare Corporation: $900 million

In June 2006, Justice Department announced that Tenet Healthcare Corporation, operator of the Nation’s second largest hospital chain, had agreed to pay the United States more than $900 million for alleged unlawful billing practices.

According to the government, the settlement amount, which was based on the company’s “ability to pay” (a phrase that suggests the government’s calculation of damages was higher), included more than $788 million to resolve claims arising from Tenet’s receipt of excessive “outlier” payments (payments that are intended to be limited to situations involving extraordinarily costly episodes of care, resulting from the hospitals’ inflating their charges substantially in excess of any increase in the costs associated with patient care and billing for services and supplies not provided to patients); more than $47 million to resolve claims that Tenet paid kickbacks to physicians to have Medicare patients referred to its facilities; and that Tenet billed Medicare for services that were ordered or referred by physicians with whom Tenet had an improper financial relationship; and more than $46 million to resolve claims that Tenet engaged in “upcoding.” The Justice Department acknowledged that “several” of the issues arose from lawsuits filed by whistleblowers under the qui tam provisions of the Act.

b. Serona, S.A: $704 million

The Swiss corporation, Serona, S.A., with its U.S. subsidiaries and related entities, agreed to pay $704 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations in October 2005. According to the Justice Department’s announcement, these allegations were in connection with illegal schemes to promote, market, and sell Serostim, an AIDS drug. The civil portion of the settlement was $567 million, and Serona also agreed to pay a $136.9 million criminal fine. This was the third largest health care fraud recovery by the government at the time.

According to the government, Serona knowingly submitted false and fraudulent claims for Serostim that were not eligible for reimbursement because they were for unnecessary and/or for off-label use of Serostim, and because the claims were for prescriptions induced by kickbacks. The investigation began in 2000 because a former Serona Lab’s employee filed a qui tam action, which was followed by other whistleblower suits in other states. This Serona settlement was reportedly the largest civil drug settlement to date.

(more…)

The Growing Importance of the Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is part 4 of my article on the False Claims Act. This part discusses the huge increase in federal dollars recovered in the past few years:

IV. Recent Recoveries and Other Developments In Qui Tam Litigation

A. An Explosion of Federal Dollars Recovered Since 1986, Under the False Claims Act

Over the past 20 years since the modern False Claims Act was established through the 1986 Amendments, the federal government’s recoveries of dollars have grown astronomically. The Department of Justice statistics reprinted in Appendix 2 tell the story:

In 1987, the government’s recoveries in qui tam cases totaled zero, presumably because the 1986 Amendments had just taken effect; and total recoveries under the False Claims Act were just $86 million. The following year, qui tam and other False Claims Act settlements and judgments began a steady climb upward, exceeding $200 million by 1989, and $300 million by 1991. By 1994, the government’s recoveries broke the $1 billion mark for the first time, with $380 million of that amount attributable to qui tam case recoveries alone.51

In 2000, the government recovered more than $1.5 billion, of which $1.2 billion was derived from qui tam actions. In 2001, the government recovered more than $1.7 billion, with almost $1.2 billion of that amount from qui tam cases. With the exception of 2004, in each year since 2000 the government has recovered more than a billion dollars per year under the False Claims Act, and qui tam actions were responsible for the lion’s share of those recoveries. For example, in 2003, government recoveries exceeded $2.2 billion, of which $1.4 billion derived from qui tam cases. Similarly, in 2005, of the government’s total recovery of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of that amount derived from qui tam cases.

(more…)

How the Modern False Claims Act Works in Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is part 3 of my article on how the False Claims Act works:

III. Brief Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government.27 “Claim” is broadly defined to include not only submissions made directly to the federal government, but also “any request or demand . . . for money or property” made to a “contractor, grantee, or other recipient” if the federal government provides any portion of the money or property in question.28

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement” to obtain payment of a false claim. It imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the government.”29

Third, the False Claims Act imposes liability under a “conspiracy” provision. Any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid” is also liable under the Act.30
Fourth, since the government also can be defrauded when a private entity underpays or avoids paying an obligation to the government, the modern Act contains what is known as a “reverse false claim” provision. It creates liability for any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”31 For example, a company that is obligated to pay royalties to the government under an oil lease can be held liable if it uses false records or statements to pay less than what it owes.

(more…)

History of the False Claims Act

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

This is the second part of my article explaining the False Claims Act–it addresses the history of the Act:

II. Background of the False Claims Act
While the False Claims Act may be the best known qui tam statute, it is far from being the first. Qui tam actions date back to English law in the 13th and 14th Centuries. This tradition took root in the American colonies and, by 1789, states and the new federal government had authorized qui tam actions in various contexts.7
According to one writer, “[i]n the early years of the Nation, the qui tam mechanism served a need at a time when federal and state governments were fairly small and unable to devote significant resources to law enforcement. As the role of the Government expanded, the utility of private assistance in law enforcement did not diminish. If anything, changes in the role and size of Government created a greater role for this method of law enforcement.” 8

A. Birth of the False Claims Act
The Civil War prompted Congress to enact the original False Claims Act in 1863. As government spending on war materials increased, dishonest government contractors took advantage of opportunities to defraud the United States government. “Through haste, carelessness, or criminal collusion, the state and federal officers accepted almost every offer and paid almost any price for the commodities, regardless of character, quality, or quantity.”9 The original legislative proposal would have made contractors subject to martial law. A substitute bill provided for both civil and criminal penalties, and it authorized private individuals to sue on behalf of the United States. One senator explained how the qui tam provision of the Act was intended to work:

The effect of the [qui tam provision] is simply to hold out to a confederate a strong temptation to betray his co-conspirator, and bring him to justice. The bill offers, in short, a reward to the informer who comes into court and betrays his co-conspirator, if he be such; but it is not confined that class. . . . In short, sir, I have based the [qui tam provision] upon the old fashioned idea of holding out a temptation and setting a rogue to catch a rogue, which is the safest and most expeditious way I have ever discovered of bringing rogues to justice.10
The original Act provided for civil penalties of double the amount of damages sustained by the United States as a result of the false claim, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted.11 In the original Act, if a private citizen used the qui tam provision to file suit, the government had no right to intervene or control the litigation. The “relator” who was successful was entitled to receive one-half the amount of the final judgment in forfeiture and damages, with the United States receiving the other half.12

(more…)

Introduction to the False Claims Act and Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases

January 18, 2007
Michael Sullivan

I wrote this article for a seminar to explain the False Claims Act to those who may not know about it. I hope it may be useful to those who are interested in the Act. I have divided it into several sections–this is the first section, summarizing how the False Claims Act came to be in the time of Abraham Lincoln, and how it has evolved since then:

I. Introduction

Fraud is perhaps so pervasive and, therefore, costly to the Government due to a lack of deterrence. GAO concluded in its 1981 study that most fraud goes undetected due to the failure of Governmental agencies to effectively ensure accountability on the part of program recipients and Government contractors. The study states:

For those who are caught committing fraud, the chances of being prosecuted and eventually going to jail are slim . . . The sad truth is that crime against the Government often does pay.1

Fraud–and allegations of fraud–plague government spending at every level. Today, as the federal and state governments struggle to fund the billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare and Medicaid; the Iraq war and reconstruction effort; other Department of Defense procurement; Hurricane Katrina and other disaster relief; and government grants and programs of every description, there is no shortage of opportunities for fraud against the public fisc.

The federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, has been the federal government’s “primary” weapon to recover losses from those who defraud it.2 The Act not only authorizes the government to pursue actions for treble damages and penalties, but also empowers and provides incentives to private citizens to file suit on the government’s behalf as “qui tam relators.”3 Over the past 20 years, recoveries for the federal government have grown dramatically since Congress amended the Act in 1986 to encourage greater use of the qui tam provisions, as part of a “coordinated effort of both the [g]overnment and the citizenry [to] decrease this wave of defrauding public funds.”4

The False Claims Act has unique procedural requirements that create many pitfalls for a lawyer prosecuting or defending cases under the Act. In addition, the law varies among the different federal circuits in ways that can determine the outcome of a False Claims Act case, depending on where it is filed.

——————————————————————————–

1 Legislative History to P.L. 99-562, False Claims Amendments Act of 1986, Senate Report No. 99-345 S. Rep. 99-345, 3, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5268 (hereinafter “Legislative History”) (quoting 1981 GAO Report to Congress, “Fraud in Government Programs: How Extensive is it? How Can it be Controlled?”).

2 Legislative History, at 2, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5266.

3 The term “qui tam” is derived from the Latin phrase, “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.” Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 769 N.1 (2000).

4 Senate Report No. 99-345 S. Rep. 99-345, *2, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, **5267. Appendix 2 shows the growth in revenues, which is discussed in section IV infra.

(more…)

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

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

June 6, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

May 27, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

May 15, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

May 4, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

April 30, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

April 28, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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);

(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…)

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

April 25, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

April 16, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

SEC Whistleblower Program–The SEC Inspector General’s Report

April 5, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)

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

April 5, 2010
Michael Sullivan

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…)