Tag: Criminal Law

NAVEX Report Reveals Increase in Whistleblower Retaliation and Reporting of Misconduct

NAVEX’s 2022 Risk & Compliance Hotline & Incident Management Benchmark Report reveals an increase in internal reporting about misconduct and an increase in allegations of retaliation.  The analysis of data from 3,470 organizations that received more than 1.37 million individual reports identified the following trends (see the full report for a discussion of additional trends and analysis of the data):

  • “More actual allegations of misconduct, rather than inquiries about policies or possible misconduct. Ninety percent of all reports in 2021 were allegations of misconduct, up from 86 percent last year and hitting an all-time high since our first benchmark report more than ten years ago.”

  • “Reports about retaliation, harassment and discrimination jumped – especially retaliation. In 2021, reports of retaliation nearly doubled . . . Taken altogether, these findings suggest employees are more attuned to workplace civility issues. That would fit with external trends such as more talk about systemic racism, income inequality and political divisions; as well as increasing protection for whistleblowers and employees’ awareness of  those protections.”

  • “Substantiation rates continue to edge upward. Overall substantiation rates rose from 42 percent in 2020 to 43 percent in 2021, and up from 36 percent a decade ago. The reports substantiated most often were data privacy concerns (63 percent), environmental issues (59 percent), and confidential and proprietary information (54 percent). The reports substantiated least often were about retaliation (24 percent).”

  • “The substantiation rate for reports of retaliation also went up slightly, from 23 percent in 2020 to  24 percent in 2021 – the highest substantiation rate seen since 2016. While steady, this substantiation rate is significantly below the overall median case substantiation rate of 43 percent in 2021. These cases, though difficult to prove, warrant attention.”

  • “Reports of harassment exceeded levels from the height of the #MeToo movement.”

Corporate Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblower retaliation remains all too prevalent.  A September 14, 2022 Bloomberg article titled Whistleblower retaliation remains all too prevalent discusses how “choosing to be a whistle-blower can also be a lonely, risky road” and identifies many deterrents to speaking up – “[t]hey may be afraid of litigation, ruining their reputations, losing security clearances or facing jail time.”

Fortunately, federal and state laws afford corporate whistleblowers remedies to combat retaliation, and whistleblower reward laws incentivize whistleblowers to take the considerable risks entailed in reporting fraud and other wrongdoing to the government.  For example, the

SEC Whistleblower Program offers awards to eligible whistleblowers who provide original information that leads to successful SEC enforcement actions with total monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. A whistleblower may receive an award of between 10% and 30% of the total monetary sanctions collected in actions brought by the SEC and in related actions brought by other regulatory or law enforcement authorities. The SEC Whistleblower Program allows whistleblowers to submit tips anonymously if represented by an attorney in connection with their tip.

What is Whistleblower Retaliation?

Whistleblower retaliation laws prohibit a broad range of retaliatory actions against whistleblowers, including any act that would dissuade a worker from engaging in protected whistleblowing.  Examples of actionable whistleblower retaliation include:

  • Terminating a whistleblower;

  • Constructively discharging a whistleblower;

  • Demoting a whistleblower;

  • Suspending a whistleblower;

  • Harassing a whistleblower or subjecting the whistleblower to a hostile work environment;

  • Reassigning a whistleblower to a position with significantly different responsibilities;

  • Issuing a performance evaluation or performance improvement plan that supplies the necessary foundation for the eventual termination of the whistleblower’s employment, or a written warning or counseling session that is considered discipline by policy or practice and is routinely used as the first step in a progressive discipline policy;

  • Placing the whistleblower on administrative leave;

  • Threatening to take an adverse action against a whistleblower;

  • Subjecting a whistleblower to a retaliatory investigation or retaliatory surveillance;

  • Suing a whistleblower for the purpose of retaliating against the whistleblower;

  • Outing a whistleblower;

  • Intimidating a whistleblower;

  • Initiating a law enforcement investigation or facilitating an employee’s detention by U.S. ICE after the employee reported a serious injury; or

  • Discriminating against a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment because of whistleblowing.

The DOL Administrative Review Board has emphasized that statutory language prohibiting discrimination “in any way” must be broadly construed and therefore a whistleblower need not prove that a retaliatory act had a tangible impact on an employee’s terms and conditions of employment.

What Damages Can a Whistleblower Recover in a Whistleblower Retaliation Case?

Whistleblower retaliation can exact a serious toll, including lost pay and benefits, reputational harm, and emotional distress.  Indeed, whistleblower retaliation can derail a career and deprive the whistleblower of millions of dollars in lost future earnings.

Whistleblowers should be rewarded for doing the right thing, but all too often they suffer retaliation and find themselves marginalized and ostracized.  Federal and state whistleblower laws provide several remedies to compensate whistleblowers that have suffered retaliation, including:

  • back pay (lost wages and benefits);

  • emotional distress damages;

  • damages for reputational harm;

  • reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof;

  • lost future earnings; and

  • punitive damages.

Combating Whistleblower Retaliation: How to Maximize Your Recovery

Whistleblower protection laws can provide a potent remedy, but before bringing a retaliation claim, it is crucial to assess the options under federal and state law and develop a strategy to achieve the optimal recovery.  Key issues to consider include the scope of protected whistleblowing, the burden of proof, the damages that a prevailing whistleblower can recover, the forum where the claim would be litigated, and the impact of the retaliation claim on a whistleblower rewards claim.

Scope of Protected Whistleblowing

There is no federal statute that provides general protection to corporate whistleblowers.  Instead, federal whistleblower protection laws protect specific types of disclosures, such as disclosures of securities fraud, tax fraud, procurement fraud, or consumer financial protection fraud.  The main sources of federal protection for corporate whistleblowers include the whistleblower protection provisions of the following:

  • The False Claims Act (FCA) — protecting disclosures about fraud directed toward the government, including actions taken in furtherance of a qui tam action and efforts to stop a violation of the FCA;

  • The Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA) — protecting whistleblowing about gross mismanagement of a federal contract or grant; a gross waste of federal funds; an abuse of authority relating to a federal contract or grant or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract;

  • The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) — protecting disclosures about mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, a violation of any SEC rule, or shareholder fraud;

  • The Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) — protecting whistleblowing to the SEC about potential violations of federal securities laws;

  • The Taxpayer First Act (TFA) — protecting disclosures about tax fraud or tax underpayment;

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) — protecting disclosures concerning violations of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules or federal laws regulating unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices in the provision of consumer financial products or services; and

  • The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) — protecting disclosures about violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.

While most of these anti-retaliation laws protect internal disclosures (e.g., reporting to a supervisor), whistleblower protection under the DFA is predicated on a showing that the whistleblower disclosed a potential violation of federal securities law to the SEC prior to suffering an adverse action.

State law may also provide a remedy, including the anti-retaliation provisions in state FCAs.  And approximately 42 states recognize a common law wrongful discharge tort action (a public policy exception to at-will employment), which generally protects refusal to engage in illegal activity and the exercise of a statutory right.

Burden of Proof

To maximize the likelihood of winning a case (or at least getting the case before a jury), it is useful to select a remedy with a favorable causation standard (the level of proof required to link the protected whistleblowing to the adverse employment action).  SOX has a favorable “contributing factor” causation standard, i.e., the whistleblower prevails by proving that their protected whistleblowing affected in any way the employer’s decision to take an adverse action.  In contrast, the FCA and DFA require the whistleblower to prove “but for” causation, i.e., the adverse action would not have happened “but for” the protected whistleblowing (albeit there is no need to prove that it was the sole factor).

Damages and Remedies in Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

Variations in the remedies available to whistleblowers under federal anti-retaliation laws may warrant bringing more than one claim.  For example, the DCWPA authorizes an award of back pay (the value of lost pay and benefits), and the FCA authorizes an award of double back pay.  If the whistleblower’s disclosures are protected under both statutes, then the whistleblower should bring both claims.

While a prevailing whistleblower can recover back pay under both the DFA and SOX (double back pay under the former and single back pay under the latter), the DFA does not authorize special damages, i.e., damages for emotional distress and reputational harm.  In contrast, SOX authorizes uncapped compensatory damages.  Therefore, a whistleblower protected under both statutes should bring the SOX claim within the much shorter SOX statute of limitations (180 days) to recover both double back pay and special damages.

State law may also provide a remedy, and if the whistleblower can pursue both a statutory remedy and a wrongful discharge tort, the latter may offer the opportunity to seek punitive damages.

Forum Selection and Administrative Exhaustion

When selecting the optimal remedy to combat retaliation, a whistleblower should consider the forum where the claim would be tried and determine whether the claim must initially be investigated by a federal agency before the whistleblower can litigate the claim.  SOX provides an unequivocal exemption from mandatory arbitration, but Dodd-Frank claims are subject to arbitration.  Accordingly, a whistleblower protected both by SOX and Dodd-Frank should file a SOX claim within the 180-day statute of limitations to preserve the option to try the case before a jury.

Several of the corporate whistleblower protection laws require that the whistleblower file the claim initially at a federal agency and permit the agency to investigate the claim before the whistleblower can litigate the claim.  This is called administrative exhaustion, and failure to comply with that requirement can waive the claim.  In contrast, the FCA and DFA do not require administrative exhaustion.

Impact of Whistleblower Retaliation Claim on Whistleblower Rewards Claim

Another important consideration is the potential impact of a retaliation case on a qui tam or whistleblower rewards case.  Filing an FCA retaliation claim while a qui tam suit is under seal poses some risk of violating the seal, which could bar the whistleblower from recovering a relator share.  Therefore, counsel should consider filing the FCA retaliation claim under seal along with the qui tam suit.

Further, whistleblowers pursuing rewards claims at federal agencies (e.g., SEC or IRS whistleblower claims) while simultaneously pursuing related retaliation claims (e.g., a SOX or TFA claim) should assess the potential impact of the retaliation claim and the potential discoverability of submissions to the SEC or IRS on the rewards claim(s).

Although the patchwork of whistleblower protection laws fails to protect disclosures about certain forms of fraud, there are important pockets of protection.  To effectively combat retaliation, whistleblowers should avail themselves of all appropriate remedies.

Article By Jason Zuckerman and Matthew Stock of Zuckerman Law

For more criminal law / business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Zuckerman Law

Acronis Reports Ransomware Damages Will Exceed $30B by 2023

In its Mid-Year Cyberthreat Report published on August 24, 2022, cybersecurity firm Acronis reports that ransomware continues to plague businesses and governmental agencies, primarily through phishing campaigns.

According to the report over 600 malicious email campaigns were launched in the first half of 2022, with the goal of stealing credentials to launch ransomware attacks. Other attack vectors included vulnerabilities to cloud-based networks, targeting unpatched or software vulnerabilities, and cryptocurrency and decentralized finance systems.

According to Acronis, “ransomware is worsening, even more so than we predicted.” It estimates that global damages related to ransomware attacks will top $30 billion by 2023.

Article By Linn F. Freedman of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Whistleblowers Put Magnifying Glass on Optical Lens Manufacturer’s Kickback Scheme

September 1, 2022.  The United States Department of Justice settled two civil fraud cases against an optical lens manufacturer, marketer, and distributor Essilor regarding allegations that the company violated the Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act.  Under the terms of the settlement, the optical lens companies, Essilor International, Essilor of America, Inc., Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., and Essilor Instruments USA, paid $16.4 million.  The three whistleblowers were former district sales managers.  The whistleblowers—or relators—filed two qui tam lawsuits under the False Claims Act, and as relators, they entitled to 15-25% of the government’s recovery.

According to the allegations, the optical lens companies created incentive programs which they marketed to eye care providers.  The programs offered incentives for optometrists and ophthalmologists to steer patients to choose Essilor brand products because the providers received (unlawful) remuneration for doing so.  When a healthcare provider’s choice of medication or device is driven by a financial reward from that device’s manufacturer, that is misconduct that violates the Anti-Kickback Statute.  Since providers submitted claims to Medicare and Medicaid for Essilor optical products allegedly chosen as part of these incentive programs, those claims violated the False Claims Act.

The optical lens company has to hire an Independent Review Organization (IRO) as part of the five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) it entered into with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Independent Review Organization will review any discount programs Essilor plans to roll out in the future.  The Acting Chief Counsel at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General emphasized the impact of this case, “Kickback schemes can impact medical judgment, eroding the trust of both patients and taxpayers.”  Patients—and taxpayers—should not wonder whether their healthcare provider is recommending a particular healing modality because they are incentivized to make that recommendation.  Whistleblowers, such as the sales representatives in these two cases, can spot unlawful kickback schemes and be rewarded—properly—for reporting them.

Article By the Whistleblower Practice Group at Tycko & Zavareei LLP

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

The Supreme Court Is Poised to Weigh in on a False Claims Act Circuit Split

Three pending petitions for writ of certiorari have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a split among the federal courts of appeals as to the pleading standard for False Claims Act (“FCA”) whistleblower claims.

The FCA creates a right of action whereby either the government or private individuals can bring lawsuits against actors who have defrauded the government. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. Under the FCA, a private citizen can act as a “relator” and bring an action on behalf of the government in what is known as a qui tam suit. The government can elect to intervene, which means participate, in the suit; if it does not, the relator can continue to litigate the case without the direct participation of the government. 31 U.S.C. § 3730. Private individuals can receive a portion of the action’s proceeds or settlement amount. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).

The petitions ask the Court to clarify the level of particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) (“Rule 9(b)”) to plead a claim under the FCA. Rule 9(b) requires plaintiffs alleging “fraud or mistake” to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.”

Johnson v. Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care LLC, Case No. 21-462

In their petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners in Johnson asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue of whether Rule 9(b) requires FCA plaintiffs “who plead a fraudulent scheme with particularity to also plead specific details of false claims.” The Eleventh Circuit earlier affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an FCA claim based on the plaintiffs’ failure to plead “specific details about the submission of an actual false claim” to the government. Estate of Helmly v. Bethany Hospice & Palliative Care of Coastal Georgia, LLC, 853 F. App’x 496, 502-03 (11th Cir. 2021).

In particular, the relators alleged that several doctors purchased ownership interests in Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care, LLC (“Bethany Hospice”) and were allocated kickbacks for patient referrals through a combination of salary, dividends, and/or bonus payments.  Id. at 498. Among other allegations, the complaint alleged that both the relators had access to Bethany Hospice’s billing systems, and, based on their review of those systems and conversations with other employees, were able to confirm that Bethany Hospital submitted false claims for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to the government.  Id. at 502.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the allegations were “insufficient” under Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard for fraud cases.  Id. Even though the relators alleged direct knowledge of Bethany Hospice’s billing and patient records, their failure to provide “specific details” regarding the dates of the claims, the frequency with which Bethany Hospice submitted those claims, the amounts of the claims, or the patients whose treatment formed the basis of the claims defeated their FCA claim.  Id. In addition, the relators did not personally participate or directly witness the submission of any false claims.  Id. The Eleventh Circuit also found unpersuasive the relators’ argument that Bethany Hospice derived nearly all its business from Medicare patients, therefore making it plausible that it had submitted false claims to the government.  Id. “Whether a defendant bills the government for some or most of its services,” the Eleventh Circuit stated, “the burden remains on a relator alleging the submission of a false claim to allege specific details about false claims to establish the indicia of reliability necessary under Rule 9(b).”  Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the relators did not do so here, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case.

United States ex rel. Owsley v. Fazzi Associates, Inc., Case No. 21-936

The Sixth Circuit took a similarly hardline approach in United States ex rel. Owsley v. Fazzi Associates, Inc., 16 F.4th 192 (6th Cir. 2021), ruling in favor of a strict interpretation of Rule 9(b).  The petition for a writ of certiorari in Owsley asks the Court to take up the same question as in Johnson.

In Owsley, the relator alleged that her employer used fraudulently altered data to make its patient populations seem sicker than they actually were in order to increase Medicare payments received from the government.  Id. at 195. The complaint “describe[d] in detail, a fraudulent scheme,” and alleged “personal knowledge of the billing practices employed in the fraudulent scheme.”  Id. at 196 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the Sixth Circuit ruled that these allegations were not enough under Rule 9(b). Instead, to bring a viable FCA claim, a relator’s complaint must identify “at least one false claim with specificity.”  Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A relator can do that in one of two ways: first, by identifying a representative claim actually submitted to the government; or second, by alleging facts “based on personal knowledge of billing practices” that support a strong inference that the defendant submitted “particular identified claims” to the government.  Id. (emphasis in original). Here, though the relator alleged specific instances of fraudulent data – such as upcoding a patient with a leg ulcer to include a malignant cancer diagnosis – she did not identify particular claims submitted to the government.  Id. at 197. “[T]he touchstone is whether the complaint provides the defendant with notice of a specific representative claim that the plaintiff thinks was fraudulent.”  Id. The Owsley relator, the court held, failed to meet that critical touchstone.

Molina Healthcare v. Prose, Case No. 21-1145

The Seventh Circuit adopted a more flexible pleading standard in United States v. Molina Healthcare of Illinois, Inc., 17 F.4th 732 (7th Cir. 2021). As in Johnson and Owsley, the petition for a writ of certiorari asks the Court to weigh in on the Rule 9(b) standard under the FCA. It also presents an additional question about the requirements for an FCA claim under the implied false certification theory.

In Molina Healthcare, the relator brought an FCA claim against Molina Healthcare (“Molina”) for violating certain requirements of its Medicaid contract. The relator alleged that Molina, which had previously subcontracted with another entity for the provision of certain nursing home services, continued to collect payment for those services from the government even though it no longer provided them. Molina Healthcare, 17 F.4th at 736. Molina Healthcare received fixed payments from the government for different categories of patients. It received the highest per capita payment for patients in nursing facilities: $3,180.30.  Id. at 737-38. The relator alleged that Molina Healthcare knowingly continued to collect this rate from the government when it no longer provided a key service to nursing home patients.  Id.

The relator brought an FCA claim against Molina based on three theories of liability: (1) factual falsity (i.e., presenting a facially false claim to the government); (2) fraud in the inducement (i.e., misrepresenting compliance with a payment condition “in order to induce the government to enter the contract”); and (3) implied false certification (i.e., presenting a false claim with the “omission of key facts” instead of “affirmative misrepresentations”).  Id. at 740-741.

The Seventh Circuit held that the relator’s allegations satisfied Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirement under all three theories. First, as to factual falsity, the Court found that the relator provided sufficient information as to the “when, where, how, and to whom” Molina made the allegedly false representations.  Id. at 741. Though the relator did not have access to the defendant’s files, the information he provided “support[ed] the inference” that Molina had submitted false claims to the government.  Id. Second, as to fraud in the inducement, the Seventh Circuit found that the relator’s “precise allegations” regarding “the beneficiaries, the time period, the mechanism for fraud, and the financial consequences” again satisfied Rule 9(b)’s standard.  Id. at 741. The complaint also included details about Molina’s chief operating officer’s statements that indicated that Molina “never intended to perform the promised act that induced the government to enter the contract.”  Id. at 741-42.  Third, as to the implied false certification theory, the court found that the plaintiff adequately alleged that Molina knowingly omitted key material facts while submitting claims to the government.  Id. at 743-44.

The Supreme Court Invites Comment from the Solicitor General

Facing what appears to be a major circuit split, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file a brief “expressing the views of the United States” in Johnson in January 2022 and in Owsley in May 2022.

The Supreme Court invites the Solicitor General to comment on only a handful of the approximately 7,000 to 8,000 petitions for writ of certiorari that the Court receives in a year. In the 2021 Term, for example, the Solicitor General filed what it calls a “Petition Stage Amicus Brief” in only 19 cases. Four Justices must vote to issue an invitation to the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General’s view on whether the Court should grant certiorari has often been extremely influential. In the 2007 Term, for example, the Court denied certiorari in every case in which the Solicitor General recommended that approach. By contrast, it granted certiorari in 11 out of the 12 cases in which the Solicitor General recommended a grant. More recent data confirm that the Solicitor General’s recommendations as to whether the Court should grant certiorari remain highly influential. One study found that between May 2016 and May 2017, the Supreme Court followed the Solicitor General’s recommended approach in 23 cases (85%). At the same time, even the act of requesting the views of the Solicitor General dramatically increases the chances that the Court will take up a case. For example, between the 1998 Term and 2004 Term, one study found that the Court was 37 times more likely to grant certiorari in cases where it had invited the Solicitor General to file an amicus brief.

The Solicitor General Urges the Court to Decline Review

On May 24, 2022, the Solicitor General filed its brief in Johnson; it has yet to comment on Owsley. The Solicitor General’s amicus brief in Johnson urges the Court to deny certiorari. The Solicitor General notes that certiorari might be warranted if the courts of appeals applied a rigid, per se rule that required relators to plead “specific details of false claims.” But instead, the brief argues that the courts of appeals have “largely converged” on an approach to FCA pleading requirements that allows relators “either to identify specific false claims or to plead other sufficiently reliable indicia” to support a “strong inference” that the defendant submitted false claims to the government. According to the Solicitor General, the “divergent outcomes” among the circuit courts are merely the result of those courts’ application of a “fact-intensive standard” to various distinct allegations.

The petitioners in Johnson filed a supplemental brief in response to the Solicitor General’s views. They argue that the Solicitor General misinterpreted the Eleventh Circuit’s pleading standard, which effectively requires a relator to allege specific details about false claims to survive a motion to dismiss. In other words, the petitioners argue that in the Eleventh Circuit, the Solicitor General’s “purported” rule that a relator can either allege details about specific false claims or identify reliable indica that false claims were presented are “one and the same.”

Though the Court did not invite the Solicitor General to comment in Molina Healthcare, the petitioners in that case also filed a supplemental brief in response to the Solicitor General’s amicus in Johnson. “Everyone but the Solicitor General agrees that the circuits are hopelessly divided over whether Rule 9(b) requires a relator to plead details of false claims,” the brief argues. The brief notes that the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits do not require plaintiffs to plead specific details of actual false claims; by contrast, the First, Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits require relators to plead specific details. Accordingly, the brief urges the Supreme Court to resolve the “widely acknowledged circuit split” over Rule 9(b)’s pleading standards.

The Solicitor General has a history of urging the Court to reject certiorari in FCA cases. According to the petitioners’ supplemental brief in Molina Healthcare, since the 1996 Term, the Solicitor General has recommended against review in eleven out of the twelve FCA cases in which the Court invited the Solicitor General’s views. Still, the Court granted certiorari in three of the cases in which the Solicitor General recommended against review.

Given the Supreme Court’s apparent interest in the FCA pleading standard – as evidenced by its calls for the Solicitor General’s views in Johnson and Owsley – there is a chance that it will grant certiorari in at least one of the three cases pending before it. Depending on when the Solicitor General weighs in, the Court may decide to grant certiorari in the fall of 2022.

Any Supreme Court decision that clarifies the pleading standard for FCA cases will likely affect a relator’s ability to successfully litigate qui tam actions in which the government does not intervene more than in cases in which the government does intervene. When a relator files a qui tam action, the government investigates the alleged fraud. If it intervenes in that action, it can file a complaint to include evidence it has discovered in that investigation, allowing it to meet the more stringent version of the Rule 9(b) pleading standard. Relators, however, often do not have access to the same evidence that the government does, such as specific claims data, making it far harder for a relator to meet the more stringent version of pleading standard.

Until the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, qui tam relators will continue to have an easier time satisfying the requirements of Rule 9(b) in those circuits with relaxed pleading standards. In the meantime, and whether the Court takes one of these petitions or not, any FCA whistleblower should seek legal counsel to help her identify the type of factual information that would meet the pleading requirements of the courts that apply a strict pleading requirement.

Article By Kayla Morin of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

Government Brings First Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Charges

In a series of parallel actions announced on July 21, 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated criminal and civil charges against three defendants in the first cryptocurrency insider trading case.

According to the criminal indictment, DOJ alleges that a former employee of a prominent cryptocurrency exchange used his position at the exchange to obtain confidential information about at least 25 future cryptocurrency listings, then tipped his brother and a friend who traded the digital assets in advance of the listing announcements, realizing gains of approximately $1.5 million. The indictment further alleges that the trio used various means to conceal their trading, and that one defendant attempted to flee the United States when their trading was discovered. The Government charged the three with wire fraud and wire fraud conspiracy. Notably, and like the Government’s recently announced case involving insider trading in nonfungible tokens, criminal prosecutors did not charge the defendants with securities or commodities fraud.

In its press release announcing the charges, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Damian Williams said: “Today’s charges are a further reminder that Web3 is not a law-free zone. Just last month, I announced the first ever insider trading case involving NFTs, and today I announce the first ever insider trading case involving cryptocurrency markets. Our message with these charges is clear: fraud is fraud is fraud, whether it occurs on the blockchain or on Wall Street. And the Southern District of New York will continue to be relentless in bringing fraudsters to justice, wherever we may find them.”

Based on these facts, the SEC also announced charges against the three men in a civil complaint alleging securities fraud. In order to assert jurisdiction over the matter, the SEC alleges that at least nine of the cryptocurrencies involved in the alleged insider trading were securities, and the compliant traces through the Howey analysis for each. The SEC has not announced charges against the exchange itself, though in the past it has charged at least one cryptocurrency exchange that listed securities tokens for failure to register as a securities exchange. Perhaps coincidentally, on July 21 the exchange involved in the latest DOJ and SEC cases filed a rulemaking petition with the SEC urging it to “propose and adopt rules to govern the regulation of securities that are offered and traded via digitally native methods, including potential rules to identify which digital assets are securities.”

In an unusual move, Commissioner Caroline Pham of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) released a public statement criticizing the charges. Citing the Federalist Papers, Commissioner Pham described the cases as “a striking example of ‘regulation by enforcement.’” She noted that “the SEC’s allegations could have broad implications beyond this single case, underscoring how critical and urgent it is that regulators work together.” Commissioner Pham continued, “Major questions are best addressed through a transparent process that engages the public to develop appropriate policy with expert input—through notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.” She concluded by stating that, “Regulatory clarity comes from being out in the open, not in the dark.” The CFTC is not directly involved in either case, and it is atypical for a regulator to chide a sister agency on an enforcement matter in this fashion. On the same day, another CFTC Commissioner, Kristin Johnson, issued her own carefully-worded statement that seemed to support the Government’s actions.

Article By Scott H. Kimpel of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more criminal law and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

A Fool in Idaho; SEC Sues Idahoans for Insider Trading Scheme

In July 1993 two brothers, David and Tom Gardner, and a friend, Erik Rydholm, founded a private investment advisory firm in Alexandria, Virginia. They named that firm Motley Fool after the court jester in “As You Like It,” a play written by William Shakespeare (it is believed in 1599). The Motley Fool, or Touchstone as he is known in the play, was the only character who could speak the truth to Duke Frederick without having his head cut off. Similarly, Motley Fool, the advisory firm, sought to give investors accurate advice, even if it flew in the face of received wisdom. For example, in advance of April Fool’s Day 1994, Motley Fool issued a series of online messages promoting a non-existent sewage-disposal company. The April Fool’s Day prank was intended to teach investors a lesson about penny stock companies. The messages gained widespread attention including an article in The Wall Street Journal.

Over time Motley Fool grew into a worldwide subscription stock recommendation service. It now releases new recommendations every Thursday, and subscribers receive them through computer interfaces provided by Motley Fool. The terms of service in a Motley Fool subscription agreement (in the words of the May 3, 2022 Complaint brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [“SEC”] in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York) “expressly prohibit unauthorized access to its systems.”  David Lee Stone of Nampa, Idaho (southwest of Boise), is a 36-year-old computer design and repair person with a degree in computer science.  Since June 2021, he and his wife have lived periodically in Romania, a fact cited in the Complaint, suggesting, perhaps, some involvement with Romania-based computer hackers. In any event, Stone is alleged in the Complaint to have used deceptive means beginning in November 2020 to obtain pre-release access to upcoming Motley Fool stock picks. Using that information, Stone and a co-defendant made aggressive investments, typically in options, which generated more than $12 million in gains. Stone, his codefendant, and his family and friends all benefited financially from knowing in advance the Motley Fool picks.

The SEC seeks injunctions against Stone and his co-defendant, as well as disgorgement with interest and civil penalties, for violating the antifraud provisions of federal law. The Commission also seeks disgorgement with interest from the family and friends. In addition, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has filed criminal charges against Stone.

This case is in many ways reminiscent of the 1985 federal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (who happened to be Rudolph Giuliani at the time) of R. Foster Winans. Winans was, from 1982 to 1984, the co-author of “Heard on the Street,” a column in The Wall Street Journal. Winans leaked advance word of what would be in his column to a stockbroker who then invested with the benefit of that information, sharing some of the profits with Winans. Winans argued that his actions were unethical, but not criminal. He was found guilty of insider trading and wire fraud and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court rulings.

Attempting to profit on market sensitive information can be both a civil and a criminal offense. The SEC Enforcement Division and the relevant U.S. Attorney are prepared to introduce a perpetrator to those consequences.

Article By Peter D. Hutcheon of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more securities and SEC legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

If You Can’t Stand the Heat, Don’t Build the Kitchen: Construction Company Settles Allegations of Small Business Subcontracting Fraud for $2.8 Million

For knowingly hiring a company that was not a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business to fulfill a set aside contract, a construction contractor settled allegations of small business subcontracting fraud for $2.8 million.  A corporate whistleblower, Fox Unlimited Enterprises, brought this misconduct to light.  We previously reported on the record-setting small business fraud settlement with TriMark USA LLC, to which this settlement is related.  For reporting government contracts fraud, the whistleblower will receive $630,925 of the settlement.

According to the allegations, the general contractor and construction company Hensel Phelps was awarded a General Services Administration (GSA) contract to build the Armed Forces Retirement Home’s New Commons/Health Care Building in Washington, D.C.  Part of the contract entailed sharing the work with small businesses, including service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB).  The construction contractor negotiated all aspects of the contract with an unidentified subcontractor and then hired an SDVOSB, which, according to the settlement agreement, Hensel Phelps knew was “merely a passthrough” for the larger subcontractor, thus creating the appearance of an SDVOSB performing the work on the contract to meet the set-aside requirements.  The supposedly SDVOSB subcontractor was hired to provide food service equipment for the Armed Forces Retirement Home building.

“Set aside” contracts are government contracts intended to provide opportunities to SDVOSB, women-owned small businesses, and other economically disadvantaged companies to do work they might not otherwise access.  Large businesses performing work on government contracts are often required to subcontract part of their work to these types of small businesses.  “Taking advantage of contracts intended for companies owned and operated by service-disabled veterans demonstrates a shocking disregard for fair competition and integrity in government contracting,” said the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington, as well as a shocking disregard for proper stewardship of taxpayer funds.

Whistleblowers can help fight fraud and protect taxpayers by reporting government contracts fraud.  A whistleblower can report government contracts fraud under the False Claims Act and become a relator in a qui tam lawsuit, from which they may be entitled to a share of the funds the government recovers from fraudsters.

Article By Eva Gunasekera and Renée Brooker at Tycko & Zavareei LLP

For more whistleblower legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

Preparing to Testify in Response to an SEC Subpoena

When investigating companies, brokerage firms, investment advisors, and other entities and individuals, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relies heavily on its subpoena power. Once the SEC launches a formal investigation, it can issue administrative subpoenas to the company executives, brokers, and others. These subpoenas may be a subpoena duces tecum which compels the person to whom it is addressed to produce documents in his possession or control, or a subpoena ad testificandum which compels the person to whom it is addressed to appear at a specific time and place and testify under oath or affirmation. Crucially, while these subpoenas do not require judicial approval, they are subject to judicial enforcement.

With this in mind, receiving an SEC subpoena is not a matter to be taken lightly. Individuals who have been subpoenaed to testify must thoroughly prepare their testimony, and they need to make sure they know what to expect when the day arrives.

Testifying before the SEC is fraught with potential risks. It is imperative that subpoena recipients devote the necessary time to their preparations, and that they work with their counsel to proactively identify and address all potential areas of concern.

Understanding Why You Have Received an SEC Subpoena

When preparing to testify before the SEC, a key first step is to understand why you have been subpoenaed. Broadly speaking, the SEC focuses its enforcement efforts on two areas: (i) protecting U.S. investors, and (ii) preserving the integrity of U.S. capital markets. As a result, most SEC investigations target allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and other offenses in one (or both) of these areas.

The SEC’s subpoena should provide at least some insight into the focus and scope of the SEC investigation. However, gathering the information you need to make informed decisions may require examination of other sources as well. For example, it will be helpful if you can identify anyone else who has received a subpoena or Wells Notice related to the investigation, and it may be prudent to conduct an internal compliance audit focused on uncovering any issues that could come to light.

Questions You Should Be Prepared to Answer During Your SEC Testimony

When preparing SEC testimony, it is important to keep in mind that you could easily be fielding questions for six hours or longer. While this can seem overwhelming, SEC subpoena recipients can generally expect to be asked questions in seven main categories. These main categories are:

  • Preliminary Matters
  • Background and Personal Information
  • Your Role Within Your Company or Firm
  • The Scope of Your Duties
  • Investors
  • Due Diligence
  • Clarifying and Closing the Record

1. Questions Regarding Preliminary Matters

SEC subpoena recipients can initially expect a series of questions that are designed to provide the SEC with insight into the steps they took to prepare their testimony. While these questions are largely procedural, some can present traps for the unwary. At the beginning of the session, you should be prepared to succinctly and confidently answer questions such as:

  • Did you get the opportunity to review the Formal Order associated with this matter?
  • Do you have any questions regarding the Formal Order?
  • Did you complete the Background Questionnaire by yourself?
  • Are the contents within the Background Questionnaire truthful and accurate?
  • Is there any information you wish to add to the Background Questionnaire?
  • Do you understand the rules and procedures of the SEC testimony process?
  • Do you have any questions on the rules and procedures of the SEC testimony process?

2. Questions Regarding Background and Personal Information

After dispatching these preliminary matters, the focus will shift to the SEC subpoena recipient’s background and personal information. Keep in mind that the SEC likely has much (if not all) of this information already—so if you omit information or provide misleading answers, this will not go unnoticed. During this phase of your testimony, you can expect to be asked questions such as:

  • What is your educational background?
  • Do you hold any professional or financial licenses?
  • Have you ever worked for a financial firm or investment advisory firm?
  • When did you first meet the other individual(s) involved in this matter?
  • Who introduced you?
  • What was the purpose of your first meeting (e.g., social meeting or business planning)?
  • Do your families know each other?
  • Where are you employed now?

3. Questions Regarding Your Role Within Your Company or Firm

If the SEC is investigating your company or firm (perhaps in addition to investigating you personally), you can expect several questions regarding your role within the organization. Depending on your position, the SEC’s investigators may ask you questions regarding the company or firm itself. Some examples of the questions you should be prepared to answer (as applicable) include:

  • When did you start working at the company?
  • What is your position at the company?
  • Can you describe the company’s corporate structure?
  • What are your title and position at the company?
  • Have your title and position changed over time?
  • What are the duties at the company?
  • Have your duties changed over time?
  • How is the company funded?
  • What is your salary at the company?
  • Who makes the majority of the decisions for the company?
  • Does the company sell securities?
  • Does the company pay dividends?
  • Does the company have voting rights?

4. Questions Regarding the Scope of Your Duties

After gaining an understanding of your role within your company or firm, the questioning will likely shift toward examining the scope of your duties in greater detail. In most cases, this is where the questions asked will begin to focus more on the substance of the SEC’s investigation. During this phase of your testimony, potential questions may include:

  • Can you describe your access to investor funds, financial statements and records, and investor details?
  • Are you aware of or do you have access to the sources of the company´s income?
  • What are the sources of the company´s revenue and projected revenue?
  • Can you describe or do you have access to the sources of the company´s expenses?
  • Who is responsible for preparing the company´s financial statements?
  • Do you have any role in preparing or compiling the company´s financial statements?
  • Who is responsible for preparing the company´s projected financial statements, including projected capital contributions, projected expenses, and projected revenues?
  • Do you have any role in preparing or compiling the company´s projected financial statements?
  • Does the company have its financial statements audited on an annual basis?
  • Did you ever act as a point of contact or intermediary between the company and third parties, such as investors or banks?
  • Do you ever serve as a representative of the company?
  • Are you involved in any of the company’s promotional efforts to the public?
  • Do you know or do you have access to details of the company’s anticipated monetization plans?
  • Are you aware of any complaints against the company?

5. Questions Regarding Investors

Once the scope of your duties has been established, the SEC’s investigators may next focus on your company’s or firm’s communications and relationships with investors. Here too, the investigators’ questions are likely to be tailored to the specific allegations at issue—and you could get yourself into trouble if you aren’t careful. To the extent of your knowledge, you should be prepared to accurately answer questions such as:

  • Does the company have investors?
  • Who are the investors?
  • What types of customers and/or investors do the company target or appeal to?
  • Do you communicate with investors?
  • How did the company attract capital contributions for its formation, project funding, and subsequent business plans?
  • Does the company adopt targeted marketing strategies, or does the company engage in general advertising?
  • What is the average contribution of the company’s investors?
  • Did you create, or do you have access to, a cap table?
  • Did you assist in the preparation of a cap table?
  • Did the company issue stock certificates or provide any other proof of equity ownership to investors?
  • Did the company register any of its investments?
  • Did the company issue a private placement memorandum or file a Form D?
  • Do you know if any investors already knew the company´s directors and officers before investing?
  • Does the company solicit investors or advertise to the general public (e.g., retail investors)?
  • Are you aware of what the company does with investor funds?
  • Can you describe your role in preparing any promotional or marketing materials?
  • Has the company distributed any investor documents or marketing/solicitation materials to the public?
  • Does the company have any plan to show, or did it show, promotional documents to investors?
  • Does the company hold regular investor calls?

6. Questions Regarding Due Diligence

Due diligence is often a key topic of discussion. SEC investigators are well aware that many company executives, brokers, and others are not sufficiently familiar with their companies’ and firms’ due diligence obligations, and charges arising out of due diligence violations are common. With this in mind, you should be prepared to carefully navigate inquiries such as:

  • Does the company have any identity verification procedures in place?
  • What kinds of identity verification procedures does the company use for its investors?
  • Can you describe the company´s know-your-customer (“KYC”) policies?
  • Do you assist with verifying investors or capital contributions?
  • Does the company maintain a compliance program?

7. Questions to Clarify and Close the Record

Finally, at the end of the session, the SEC’s investigators will ask if you want to clarify or supplement any of the answers you have provided. It is important not to let your guard down at this stage. While your testimony is nearly over, you need to remain cognizant of the risk of providing unnecessary information (or omitting information) and exposing yourself to further scrutiny or prosecution. With this in mind, it is best to consult with your counsel before answering questions such as:

  • Is there anything you wish to clarify from today´s testimony?
  • Is there anything you wish to add to your testimony before we close and go off the record?

Practicing your answers to these questions (among others) in a mock interview with your legal counsel or SEC defense attorney will help ensure that you are prepared for the SEC as possible.

Article By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.

For more SEC and securities legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022

Federal Criminal Drug Counterfeiting Defense

Introduction: What is Drug Counterfeiting?

Selling fake drugs may subject you to criminal liability under 21 U.S.C. § 331. Section 331 makes it illegal to sell a misbranded or adulterated drug in interstate commerce. The sale of counterfeit drugs must involve interstate commerce. If you sell a counterfeit drug and it crosses state lines, you will have violated this section. For instance, if you buy aspirin in New York and sell it as codeine in New Jersey, then you may be convicted under the federal counterfeit drug statute. In addition, 18 U.S. Code § 2320 – trafficking in counterfeit goods or services – may also apply. This section makes it a federal crime to traffic goods or services and then knowingly use a counterfeit mark in connection with the good or service. An example of a federal crime includes an individual creating a counterfeit drug that replicates a genuine drug, or selling fake drugs. Conduct under this statute includes possessing, manufacturing and then promoting and selling the counterfeit drug to the public.

You may also face liability for criminal fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1001. This section makes it illegal to knowingly and willfully falsify or cover up a material fact; make a materially false or fraudulent statement, or make or use false writing or document knowing that it is false. An example of criminal fraud includes telling a buyer that the product is a powerful painkiller when in fact it is a combination of baby aspirin and vitamins, and you know this. The above sections also apply to black market transactions. For instance, if you tell someone they are buying heroin when you know it is a combination of flour and caffeine, you just knowingly made a materially false statement. This article explains drug counterfeiting, definition, penalties, and tips for choosing a law firm.

Penalties for Drug Counterfeiting

Selling counterfeit drugs or fake drugs can lead to significant penalties. Under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 and 333, if you are convicted of selling counterfeit drugs across interstate commerce and you had no intent to mislead, you face a fine of up to $1,000 and a sentence of one year or less imprisonment, or both. On the other hand, if you are convicted of selling counterfeit drugs across interstate commerce and you had the intent to mislead, you face a fine of up to $10,000 and up to three years imprisonment, or both. Each sale you conduct is a separate offense—meaning that if you intentionally sell a counterfeit drug to 20 people, you face charges for 20 separate accounts. This amounts to 60 years imprisonment and a $200,000 penalty.

Also, if charged with criminal fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and convicted, you could face up to five years imprisonment and/or fines of not more than two times the gross gain or loss from the counterfeit drug sale. In addition to penalties and jail time, these charges may lead to loss of your medical license or driver’s license, termination from your employment, difficulties finding another job, loss of your immigration visa, difficulty securing a home to buy or rent, and a permanent criminal record for being a drug offender. Because of this possibility, it is important to retain a federal criminal defense attorney experienced in federal counterfeiting defense. This will give you the best defense and chance of a successful outcome.

“Several years ago, the DOJ announced efforts to expand the scope and extent of its federal investigations into suspected criminal activity as well as to increase both the charges brought and the penalties for violating federal law. Further, many counterfeiting charges require intent to defraud. Without this intent element, you cannot be found guilty. Only an experienced team can tackle this challenge and provide you with a strong defense.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C.

Four Steps to Take When Choosing Criminal Defense Lawyers

1. Make sure the law firm is focused on federal criminal law. You must be wise when choosing a criminal defense attorney because it can mean all the difference. Now is not the time to go with a junior attorney or the attorney who offers lower costs. Do not choose an attorney who claims to have a good understanding of counterfeiting defenses but who does not have a successful track record. Grand jury subpoenas and investigations are serious matters. Serious matters demand the services of a serious defense team—a defense team with a proven track record in successfully defending clients against federal counterfeiting charges.

2. Pick a law firm with an intricate knowledge of federal counterfeiting. You would not choose a doctor who does not fully understand your medical condition. You would choose the best medical professional for a serious medical condition. Do the same with your criminal defense attorney. A good attorney can find loopholes and exceptions in the law and argue them in your favor. A good attorney will go the extra mile for you. Your attorney should be able to answer questions such as their knowledge of federal counterfeiting, defenses available, their track record of success, federal trial court experience, and experience in federal criminal law.

3. Ask about your attorney´s success rate. An attorney is only as good as the results they obtain. It is important to have an honest attorney-client relationship so make sure to get an honest answer when asking your attorney about their success rates in cases similar to yours. A good attorney is often able to keep federal criminal matters out of the news by ending the federal investigation early on. A successful track record includes obtaining the following results for clients:

  • Quashing federal subpoenas;
  • Getting clients acquitted at trial;
  • Dismissing the entire indictment;
  • Avoiding criminal charges and penalties altogether; and
  • Getting sentences of probation over charges that often call for several years’ imprisonment.

4. Pick a law firm that is dedicated and committed to your case. A good law firm demonstrates dedication and open communication to its clients. Your attorney should be committed to fighting for you. It is often easy to tell whether your attorney truly wants to help you or whether they just want to make money from handling your case. Assess the sincerity of your attorney. Similarly, you must be able to freely talk to your attorney. Without open and continuous communication channels, many clients become anxious about the next stages in the investigation.

Conclusion

Drug counterfeiting charges are not to be taken lightly. Charges of criminal drug counterfeiting crimes can be devastating to an individual’s career. Not only can such charges lead to criminal penalties and jail time, but they could also result in the permanent loss of your ability to practice medicine, thereby destroying your reputation. It is therefore critical to retain an attorney that is experienced in federal counterfeiting crimes legislation, delivering strong defenses, and vigorously defending their clients against criminal charges and prosecutions.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2022
For more about crime, visit the NLR Criminal Law/Business Crimes type of law page.

Sixth Circuit Clarifies When Statute of Limitations Commences in False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Cases

On January 10, 2022, the Sixth Circuit held in El-Khalil v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 2022 WL 92565 (6th Cir. Jan 10, 2022) that the statute of limitations period for a False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation case commences when the whistleblower is first informed of the retaliatory adverse employment action.

El-Khalil’s False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Claim

While working as a podiatrist at Oakwood Healthcare, El-Khalil saw  employees submit fraudulent Medicare claims, which he reported to the federal government. In 2015, Oakwood’s Medical Executive Committee (MEC) rejected El-Khalil’s application to renew his staff privileges.  After commencing a series of administrative appeals, El-Khalil found himself before Oakwood’s Joint Conference Committee (JCC) on September 22, 2016. The JCC, which had the authority to issue a final, non-appealable decision, voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges.  On September 27, 2016, the JCC sent El-Khalil written notice of its decision.

Three years later, on September 27, 2019, El-Khalil sued Oakwood for retaliation under the False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation law.  Oakwood moved for summary dismissal on the basis that the claim was not timely filed in that the JCC’s decision became final when it voted on September 22, 2016 and therefore the filing on September 27, 2019 was outside of the 3-year statute of limitations. The district court granted Oakwood’s motion and El-Khalil appealed.

Sixth Circuit Denies Relief

In affirming the district court, the Sixth Circuit held that the text of the FCA anti-retaliation provision (providing that an action “may not be brought more than 3 years after the date when the retaliation occurred”) is unequivocal that the limitations period commences when the retaliation actually happened. It adopts “the standard rule” that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff “can file suit and obtain relief,” not when the plaintiff discovers the retaliation. The retaliation occurred on September 22 when the JCC voted to affirm the denial of El-Khalil’s staff privileges, and the JCC’s September 27 letter merely memorialized an already final decision.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit held that the False Claims Act’s whistleblower protection provision does not contain a notice provision. As soon as Oakwood “discriminated against” El-Khalil “because of” his FCA-protected conduct, he had a ripe “cause of action triggering the limitations period.” The court noted that if an FCA retaliation plaintiff could show that the employer concealed from the whistleblower the decision to take an adverse action, the whistleblower might be able to avail themself of equitable tolling to halt the ticking of the limitations clock.

Implications for Whistleblowers

Some whistleblower retaliation claims have a short statute of limitations and therefore it is critical to promptly determine when the statute of limitations starts to run.  For most whistleblower retaliation claims that are adjudicated at the U.S. Department of Labor, the clock for filing a complaint begins to tick when the complainant receives unequivocal notice of the adverse action.  Udofot v. NASA/Goddard Space Center, ARB No. 10-027, ALJ No. 2009-CAA-7 (ARB Dec. 20, 2011).  If a notice of termination is ambiguous, the statute of limitations may start to run upon the effective date of the termination as opposed to the notice date.  Certain circumstances may justify equitable modification, such as where:

  1. the employer actively misleads or conceals information such that the employee is prevented from making out a prima facie case;
  2. some extraordinary event prevents the employee from filing on time;
  3. the employee timely files the complaint, but with the wrong agency or forum; or
  4. the employer’s own acts or omissions induce the employee to reasonably forego filing within the limitations period.

See Turin v. AmTrust Financial Svcs., Inc., ARB No. 11-062, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-018 (ARB March 29, 2013).

When assessing the statute of limitations for whistleblower retaliation claims, it is also critical to calculate the deadline to timely file a claim for each discrete adverse action or each act of retaliation.  However, in an action alleging a hostile work environment, retaliatory acts outside the statute of limitations period are actionable where there is an ongoing hostile work environment and at least one of the acts occurred within the statute of limitations period.  And when filing a retaliation claim, the whistleblower should consider pleading untimely acts of retaliation because such facts are relevant background evidence in support of a timely claim.

Article By Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law

For more whistleblower and business crimes legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Zuckerman Law