(404) 609-1696

ATLANTA,GA

(404) 341-5314

DULUTH, GA

Whistleblower Blog

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

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…)

Continue Reading

Insider Trading Probe Reinforces Immediate Need for Strongest SEC Whistleblower Program

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

Links to SEC Whistleblower and CFTC Whistleblower Lawyer Information

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

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

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…)

Continue Reading

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

In Largest False Claims Act Case Over Mortgage Fraud, Bank of America to Pay $1 Billion

Since the 2008 financial collapse, many have called for imposing liability on those whose fraud fueled the crisis.

In this early phase of what we predict will be a wave of financial fraud cases, the Justice Department announced today the largest False Claims Act settlement to date over mortgage fraud. Bank of America has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations that the Bank, through Countrywide Financial Corporation and some of its subsidiaries and affiliates, engaged in underwriting and origination mortgage fraud.

DOJ
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblower Claims Explored at Heckerling Institute, the Leading Conference for Estate & Trust Lawyers and Estate Planners

The University of Miami’s Heckerling Institute last week brought together the nation’s leading estate planners, including attorneys, trust officers, accountants, insurance advisors, and wealth management professionals. For the first time, these estate planning professionals delved into how estate and gift tax issues are the subjects of many IRS Whistleblower claims.

This program was organized by Marty Basson, who recently retired from the IRS Whistleblower Office and hung out his shingle (now providing a wealth of knowledge to the private bar), after a distinguished career as the IRS authority on estate and gift tax issues.

Marty has long served on the Heckerling Institute faculty at the University of Miami. Marty is also a charter member of the IRS Estate and Gift Tax National Advisory Panel, a select group of IRS attorneys who assist in forming nationwide policy decisions in the estate and gift tax area.

Marty asked me to join him and Dawn Applebaum of the IRS Whistleblower Office for a Heckerling panel discussion last week on the IRS Whistleblower Program in the estate and gift tax arena. While a few professionals in attendance had already filed IRS Whistleblower claims, the vast majority had not.

Heckerling provided a first class forum to address many of the “hot” issues in the tax whistleblower program. I was honored to join Marty and Dawn as the private whistleblower attorney who provided the perspective of whistleblowers in the IRS Whistleblower Program.

Once Congress created the new IRS Whistleblower Program in December 2006, the IRS Whistleblower Office was unsure whether it would receive many estate tax and gift tax claims. It received far more estate and gift tax claims than anticipated.

Consider a typical case of a divorced couple who both know that a parent has hidden accounts offshore. When that parent dies, the estranged spouse knows that the offshore accounts will not likely appear on the estate tax return. Such information about tax evasion is very useful to the Service, so that honest taxpayers do not bear more than our fair share of the burden.

Our Heckerling discussion covered many, many aspects of the IRS Whistleblower Program in a spirited discussion that ran out of time. Marty was suddenly free to express his own observations, not simply the official position of the IRS.

Among the topics were recent Tax Court opinions on protecting the confidentiality of whistleblowers and of taxpayer information in appeals, and the protections of taxpayer information in proposed new Tax Court Rule 345.

I was asked to discuss steps to protect whistleblowers from criminal and civil liability, which has been an important issue in past presentations after UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld found himself prosecuted for a federal offense. Marty also asked me to discuss the view of numerous tax whistleblowers as their claims progress through the process.
(more…)

Continue Reading

How Whistleblowers in Qui Tam, IRS, and SEC Whistleblower Cases Must Protect Email Communications

At the Healthcare Fraud Institute this past week, I was asked to address what steps whistleblowers should take to ensure confidentiality of emails with their lawyers. Although qui tam cases under the False Claims Act were the focus of our discussion, the same principles apply to tax whistleblowers and SEC whistleblowers.

Potential whistleblowers should never use their company’s email system, or any email account shared with or accessible to another person, for communicating with their attorney or for gathering information or evidence to report to the government.

Although the law encourages whistleblowers to report fraud, whistleblowers can create unnecessary problems for themselves by not following this rule.

First, emails between whistleblowers and their attorneys are privileged and confidential, but the privilege can disappear and be waived if the communication is disclosed to others.

Second, qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act are filed with a court order “sealing” the case from public view, while the government investigates. If an email accidentally exposes the case, the whistleblower may have violated the court’s “seal” order.

Third, alerting a defendant company that the whistleblower has reported the company’s fraud to the government is almost certain to provoke retaliation against an employee who is a whistleblower. Immediate suspension or firing often follows. Although the False Claims Act and the SEC and CFTC whistleblower laws create remedies for retaliation, those remedies take time to achieve. They will not pay the whistleblower’s mortgage next month–or this year.

We advise all of our clients that they must protect the confidentiality of their emails. Many people do not realize that emails sent from a company’s computer system usually leave some record, even if the employee is accessing a personal Gmail account.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Under False Claims Act Explained

I have been asked to publicize a seminar at which I am speaking on handling qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act, the nation’s primary whistleblower law addressing fraud that steals government funds. Here is the announcement:

AAJ will hold a “Qui Tam” Teleseminar on December 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm EST. With recently amended whistleblower laws and several high profile settlements, lawyers need to understand the procedural complexities and pitfalls in qui tam whistleblower cases. Cosponsored by the Qui Tam Litigation
(more…)

Continue Reading

2011 IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp Hears of Deputy Commissioner Steve Miller’s “Desire for the Whistleblower Program to Grow”

At this past week’s third annual “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp,” Deputy IRS Commissioner for Service and Enforcement Steven T. Miller spoke of his “desire for the whistleblower program to grow.” A major announcement was that he would “push for” the IRS to begin using the expertise of whistleblowers who can help the IRS interpret information obtained in its audits..

In his remarks, Deputy Commissioner Miller described “offshore” tax abuses as a key area. He commented that whistleblower submissions have a “unique place” in “breaking bank secrecy.”

With budget reductions, the IRS is looking for ways to “leverage” its efforts. According to Miller, whistleblower submissions in at least three areas can help:

1. Promotion of abusive tax shelters known to potential whistleblowers
2. Tax violations in which sophisticated information technology systems pose a barrier to the IRS, unless a whistleblower can explain them
3. Inadequate information reporting that is required of third parties, and that whistleblowers can address
When it “makes sense” for the IRS to use the whistleblower’s expertise, Miller said he would encourage use of disclosure agreements with whistleblowers authorized under section 6103(n) of the Internal Revenue Code, which governs disclosure of taxpayer information. Examples he gave include review of information received in response to the Service’s information document requests, or explanation of information technology issues known to the whistleblower.

Sen. Chuck Grassley recently urged the IRS to make better use of expertise and resources that whistleblowers and their lawyers can provide, as the Justice Department does in False Claims Act cases.

This year’s IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp also included many other senior IRS officials. Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock and his office’s Special Counsel Debra Bowe were major participants.

Once again, the Office of Chief Counsel’s Senior Counsel Tom Kane participated and was again very generous with his time, both during and after the program. He addressed various litigation issues that arise in whistleblower matters. Senior Program Analysts Dawn Applebaum and Kathy Onken also provided a great deal of knowledge and insight into how the program is operating.

The most fascinating issues to me were those involving the international and offshore efforts of the IRS, the subject of the session I moderated. On this panel, joining IRS Whistleblower Office director Steve Whitlock and Senior Analyst Dawn Applebaum were Toni Weirauch, Deputy Director of International Crimes in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division; and Donna Prestia of the new Global High Wealth Division. The attendees gained an appreciation of the considerations of representing whistleblowers who may be foreign nationals gathering evidence in ways that comport with U.S. law, but that may be contrary to other countries’ bank secrecy laws.

My colleagues Erika Kelton, Paul Scott, Linda Stengle, and Margaret (Peggy) Finnerty deserve thanks for their excellent presentations as well.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Next IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp: Offshore and International Tax Whistleblower Issues and Latest Developments

Each year’s “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” brings together senior officials of the IRS Whistleblower Office and tax whistleblower attorneys to explore the latest developments in the IRS Whistleblower Program. This year’s Boot Camp is November 15, 2011 in Washington.

Of special interest this year is that Deputy IRS Commissioner for Services and Enforcement Steven T. Miller will participate for the first time. Other IRS officials participating include (in order of appearance):

—Stephen Whitlock, Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office
–Debra Bowe, Special
(more…)

Continue Reading

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases, and the New Financial Whistleblower Programs by the SEC, CFTC, and IRS To Be Discussed at Whistleblower law Symposium

Every two years, attorneys prosecuting or defending qui tam whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act and other whistleblower laws gather for the Whistleblower Law Symposium.

We have written much about “qui tam” whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act. Since last year’s passage of the Dodd-Frank law, whistleblowers who help expose (1) violations of the securities laws or (2) commercial bribery of foreign government officials, now can receive rewards of 10-30% of money sanctions imposed under the new SEC Whistleblower Program. The new IRS Whistleblower program pays whistleblowers 15-30% of amounts recovered. These cases also help stop fraud against taxpayers and investors.

On October 21, an unusual group of national experts on these claims will gather for the Whistleblower Law Symposium, which our firm organizes every two years. Not only do we have senior attorneys from the Department of Justice and experienced whistleblower lawyers discussing qui tam cases, but the Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office Steve Whitlock will participate and explain the tax whistleblower program. Senior SEC attorneys also have stated that they wish to be part of our seminar to discuss the new SEC Whistleblower Program, and are seeking approval to participate.

This conference is broader in scope than any whistleblower law conference in the country of which I am aware, as we have a national faculty of lawyers on both sides of these cases, as well as some of the top government officials involved.

Registration is still open for those who want to register online here:

Please feel free to call or email me with any questions. The Agenda is below.
(more…)

Continue Reading

GAO Report Released on IRS Whistleblower Program: Raising–But Not Answering–the Fundamental Questions of What the Tax Whistleblower Program Needs to Be Most Effective

The promising new IRS Whistleblower Program that Congress authorized in December 2006 is the subject of a long-anticipated GAO Report released this morning.

Disappointingly, the report raised, but did not attempt to answer, fundamental questions that will determine whether the IRS realizes the full potential of the new program in helping close the “tax gap”–or settles for a fraction of what it can accomplish.

Inspired by the dramatic successes of the False Claims Act in combating fraud against the government through rewarding whistleblowers,
(more…)

Continue Reading

Whistleblower Lawyer and IRS Whistleblower Office Staff to Speak at 2012 Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning

The new IRS Whistleblower Program for tax whistleblowers will be featured for the first time at the nation’s leading conference for estate planners, the Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning.

The Heckerling Institute is known as the country’s “leading conference for estate planners, including attorneys, trust officers, accountants, insurance advisors, and wealth management professionals.” This is the 46th Annual Institute, named after late Professor Philip E. Heckerling, founder of the University of Miami Law School’s Estate Planning Institute. The conference will take place from
(more…)

Continue Reading

How the New CFTC Whistleblower Rules Will Operate

When the CFTC announced its final whistleblower rules yesterday, it answered many questions about how the new CFTC whistleblower program will work.

David Meister, the CFTC’s Director of the Division of Enforcement, provided this summary according to the unofficial transcript our firm prepared of yesterday’s CFTC public meeting:

The Commission will pay awards to eligible whistleblowers who provide original information to the Commission leading to a successful Commission enforcement action and the imposition of monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million.

Congress provided that the amount of the whistleblower award must be between 10% and 30% of sanctions collected in either the Commission action or related action as defined in the rules. The Commission has discretion in determining the amount of the award within that 10 – 30 percent range.

The rules set forth a number of factors that the Commission will consider in determining the amount of the award. These factors include the significance of the information; the degree of the whistleblower’s assistance; the Commission’s programmatic interest; whether the award enhances the Commission’s ability to enforce the Commodity Exchange Act, protect customers and encourage people to come forward with high quality information; and potential adverse incentives from oversized awards.

To be award eligible, a whistleblower is not required, under our recommendation– a whistleblower is not required to report his information internally to his employer. Staff believes that such a requirement would deter some whistleblowers from coming forward, which would undermine congressional intent.
(more…)

Continue Reading