Whistleblower Blog Archives - Page 5 of 35

Whistleblower 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…)

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

What the $104 Million IRS Whistleblower Award to Former UBS Banker Means for Tax Whistleblowers

October 26, 2012
Michael Sullivan

With the current debate over raising tax rates becoming increasingly heated, a bipartisan, common-sense effort to recover more of the several hundred billion dollars that tax cheats already owe deserves far greater emphasis.

The IRS in September sent a smart and principled message that it is willing to encourage those with the best information about massive tax evasion to come forward. The IRS agreed that the billions in taxpayer funds it has begun to recover based on information from UBS whistleblower Bradley Biirkenfeld should warrant the first $100 million tax whistleblower award ever announced.
(more…)

Another Record Year–False Claims Act Recoveries Triple in FY 2012

October 25, 2012
Michael Sullivan

Each Fall, the Justice Department tallies its recoveries of taxpayer dollars that have been pilfered through fraud directed at federal programs. A year ago, DOJ proudly announced $3 billion in recoveries in False Claims Act cases, and a record $8.7 billion recovered in the three years starting in 2009.

Late this year, DOJ will announce that its fraud recoveries tripled from $3 million in FY 2011 to more than $9 million in FY 2012. This trend of increasingly large recoveries of stolen taxpayer funds proves once again the effectiveness of laws like the False Claims Act, which incentivize whistleblowers to expose fraud through its qui tam provisions.

Although health care cases account for the vast majority of FCA recoveries, growing areas include banking, mortgage, and pension fraud cases involving fraudulently obtained taxpayer dollars, as my colleagues at Taxpayers Against Fraud point out. States are also using their own false claims laws to recover stolen taxpayer funds.

In qui tam cases, private citizen whistleblowers (known as “relators”) file suit on the government’s behalf to expose fraud against taxpayer funds. The whistleblowers can receive 15-25% of the government’s recovery of stolen funds if the government prosecutes the case, and 25-30% if the government leaves it to the whistleblower to pursue the recovery.

Consider the history of False Claims Act recoveries that have totalled more than $39 billion since 1986, when Congress authorized meaningful rewards to whistleblowers:
(more…)

Executive Summary of “Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act”

October 23, 2012
Michael Sullivan

Recently, I was asked to explain the newly enacted “Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act” to some 200 city and county attorneys in Georgia. Although our firm has qui tam False Claims Act cases pending around the country, I take particular interest in making successful this law that I helped draft.

Since then, I have had many calls from attorneys about the new state False Claims Act, which includes qui tam provisions allowing whistleblowers to file suit and share in the recovery. Thus, I am summarizing here some major points about the law:

The Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act is a state version of the extremely successful federal False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA is the federal government’s primary civil tool for combating fraud directed at taxpayer funds. The majority of states already have such a law designed to stop and deter fraud against state government.

Background: The FCA originally was enacted during the Civil War. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law an amended version of the FCA, which has since generated more than $30 billion in recoveries from those who have defrauded the government. The FCA also helps deter fraud by those who do business with the government.

State False Claims Acts: As noted, based on the federal FCA’s great successes since 1986, Sen. Charles Grassley has helped lead efforts to encourage states to pass their own versions of the FCA. Congress established financial incentives for states that enact their own versions of the FCA that closely follow the FCA’s terms, through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. (Those states receive an extra 10% of Medicaid fraud recoveries.) Congress amended the federal FCA in 2009-2010 to increase the FCA’s effectiveness.

At least twenty-eight other states now have enacted their own False Claims Acts, which are also based on the federal FCA. The majority of these states’ laws protect all state spending of any nature.

On May 24, 2007, Georgia’s “State False Medicaid Claims Act” became law. It is based on the 2007 federal FCA, but protects only Medicaid spending. The new 2012 Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act now protects all state and local government spending.

In sum, the new Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act (1) protects all state and local government spending from fraud, and not simply Medicaid spending; and (2) amends the State False Medicaid Claims Act to conform to the 2009-2010 federal FCA amendments. All states are required to conform to those amendments by 2013, or lose the federal incentive of an additional 10% of Medicaid fraud recoveries.
(more…)

First SEC Whistleblower Award Made Today–Reading the Tea Leaves

August 21, 2012
Michael Sullivan

This morning’s announcement that the SEC has made its first award to a whistleblower under its new SEC Whistleblower Program established by Dodd-Frank leaves some clues about the message the SEC intends to send.

Speed: The SEC wasted no time–the award came barely two years after Dodd-Frank’s passage, and a little more than a year after the SEC finalized its SEC whistleblower rules. SEC Office of the Whistleblower Sean McKessy had seemed eager to have the SEC move quickly to utilize whistleblower information,
(more…)

Release of Incarcerated UBS Whistleblower Birkenfeld Shifts IRS Whistleblower Debate to New Round of Issues

August 1, 2012
Michael Sullivan

In presenting programs on how to protect whistleblowers from criminal and civil liability, we have watched in amazement as UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld got himself incarcerated for a felony conviction–despite apparently being one of the most valuable IRS whistleblowers ever.

Today’s announcement of Birkenfeld’s release after serving almost 30 months of a 40 month prison sentence–reportedly based on “good time” credits accrued, not some change of heart by the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted him–comes amidst blistering criticism by Sen. Chuck Grassley of impediments that some IRS officials have created to the functioning of the IRS Whistleblower program. Grassley was so frustrated that he refused to allow nominations of two persons for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury positions to proceed until July 30, after his arm-twisting for information about the tax whistleblower program had made some headway.

Now that Birkenfeld has been released, attention will shift to his claim to receive what he contends is his lawful percentage of the huge sums that the IRS is reaping based on his disclosures about UBS and US taxpayers. Based on my discussions with IRS criminal agents, they will howl if Birkenfeld receives any reward of significance.

Some believe that Birkenfeld’s “holding back” cost the IRS dearly in its investigation of a former Birkenfeld/UBS client. They will argue, “Why reward a convicted felon?”

On the opposite extreme, some persons who advocate for whistleblowers have loudly condemned the entire prosecution of Birkenfeld. Those arguments have struck me as short-sighted. They ignore the principle that there is a rule of law that must apply to all of us, including whistleblowers.

Based on our review of available Birkenfeld court filings and transcripts, he apparently violated the cardinal rule that a whistleblower cannot “hold back” information about his own alleged misdeeds in his “cooperation” with the government. This is not a novel theory, but a long-settled principle.

To obtain a “pass” for one’s own felonious conduct, one must tell it all. (Read Birkenfeld’s sentencing transcript to see how he failed to dispute then the essential facts relied on by the government). Rather than frighten potential whistleblowers, whistleblower attorneys should encourage them to learn the facts by pointing out Birkenfeld’s apparent errors–and show how easily those errors can usually be avoided.

Except for those who have a financial interest in representing Birkenfeld, I do not see how whistleblower advocates would fail to appreciate how failing to prosecute Birkenfeld under these circumstances would have been even more damaging to the cause of whistleblowers generally.

Given that he apparently flouted this cardinal rule and thus allegedly misled prosecutors, his serious misconduct cannot be ignored. Opponents of compensating whistleblowers for revealing fraud would use an unchastened and unprosecuted Birkenfeld as “red meat” to try to undermine–if not repeal–the IRS whistleblower law.
(more…)

SEC Whistleblower Rules Have It Right: Report Shows Most Whistleblowers Report Internally First

May 30, 2012
Michael Sullivan

When the SEC debated in 2011 requiring “internal” reporting within companies as a prerequisite to filing an SEC Whistleblower claim under Dodd-Frank, business interests howled that any other rule would “destroy” compliance programs.

Never mind that the vast majority of whistleblowers have always raised concerns about illegal conduct internally before reporting to the government. Whistleblower lawyers already knew that fact from twenty-five years of experience with the False Claims Act–the nation’s major qui tam whistleblower law that inspired the new SEC Whistleblower Program.
(more…)

“Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act” Is Signed Into Law in Georgia

April 16, 2012
Michael Sullivan

The nation’s newest state False Claims Act was signed into law today by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, after passing unanimously in both houses of the legislature.

The “Georgia Taxpayer Protection False Claims Act” protects all taxpayer dollars spent not only by the State, but also by counties, municipalities, school districts, hospital authorities, and other local public bodies or entities.

Like the federal False Claims Act, this Act combats fraud and false claims against taxpayer funds by imposing “treble” damages and civil penalties of
(more…)

Damages and Penalties in Qui Tam Cases Under the False Claims Act to Be Addressed at ABA Conference

March 30, 2012
Michael Sullivan

A critical issue in qui tam cases under the False Claims Act is how government lawyers and whistleblower attorneys prove damages caused by the fraud and false claims involved.

This whistleblowerlawyerblog‘s co-author MIchael A. Sullivan has been asked to moderate a panel discussion on “Recent Developments on Damages and Penalties” at a leading American Bar Association conference on the False Claims Act, the 2012 ABA National Institute on the Civil False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement, on June 6-8, 2012
(more…)

IRS Misses Golden Opportunity in Refusing to Modify Tax Whistleblower Rule

February 21, 2012
Michael Sullivan

In a controversial decision today, the IRS squandered an opportunity to help close the tax gap by attracting more whistleblowers with significant information about large tax schemes. The public will suffer as a result.

Stubbornly, the IRS rejected calls for a common sense approach to rewarding tax whistleblowers, as it refused to modify a proposed rule that narrowly defines the categories of cases that should justify awards to whistleblowers.

At issue is what Congress meant by the term “collected proceeds”–an undefined phrase
(more…)

Another Financial Fraud False Claims Act Case Nets Millions from Lender

February 13, 2012
Michael Sullivan

Financial fraud cases under the False Claims Act continue. A Pennsylvania lender has agreed to pay $3.9 million in a False Claims Act case over alleged false statements in mortgage loan applications for loans insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The loans were made to two nursing homes.

The government contended that Capmark Finance LLC misrepresented the borrowers’ creditworthiness in these two applications for mortgage loans. When the loans defaulted, the FHA sustained losses.

The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task
(more…)