Tag: legal

International Groups Call for DOJ Whistleblower Program to Incorporate Best Practices

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is in the midst of developing a whistleblower award program. According to Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri, “the whole point of the DAG’s 90-day ‘policy sprint’ is to gather information, consult with stakeholders, and design a thoughtful, well-informed program.”

Since the Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the policy sprint on March 7, whistleblower advocates in the U.S., including Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, have consulted with the DOJ, outlining key elements of other successful whistleblower programs which should be incorporated in the DOJ program.

On May 13, a coalition of anti-corruption organizations and law firms from over twenty countries sent a letter to the DOJ emphasizing that an effective DOJ whistleblower program could greatly aid international anti-corruption efforts.

“We, the undersigned organizations, believe that a U.S. Department of Justice whistleblower rewards program has the potential to be instrumental to each of our anti-corruption efforts,” write the organizations.

“However, without careful consideration for the unique risks of international whistleblowers and without the implementation of the best-practice protocols identified above, this program could be damaging for international whistleblowers, and their catalytic role in transnational anti-corruption efforts,” the letter continues.

In the letter, the organizations call on the DOJ to incorporate four proven best practices for whistleblower award programs. These best practices mirror those previously called for by Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. Allison Herren Lee, former SEC Commissioner and currently Of Counsel at Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, outlined these four elements in a recent article for the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.

The four recommendations are:

1. Mandatory Awards of 10-30% of Proceeds Collected

2. Anonymous and Confidential Reporting Channels

3. Dedicated Whistleblower Office

4. Eligibility Requirements which Match the SEC Whistleblower Program

Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.
For more on the DOJ Whistleblower Program, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

CEQ Finalizes “Phase 2” Revisions to NEPA Implementing Regulations

The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) is tasked with issuing National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) regulations to guide federal agencies in its implementation. In 2021, CEQ began a two-phase process to revise these regulations. “Phase 1” largely reversed several changes made to the regulations in 2020 under the prior Trump Administration, including key changes relating to defining “purpose and need” and the long-used concepts of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The new “Phase 2” revisions are more extensive. Some of the Phase 2 revisions codify in regulation amendments to NEPA made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (“FRA”) and intended to improve the efficiency of the NEPA process, such as establishing page limits for environmental documents and facilitating the use of categorical exclusions (“CEs”). The Phase 2 revisions also restore additional concepts or provisions from the 1978 regulations and case law interpreting those regulations, remove additional changes made in 2020 that CEQ now “considers imprudent,” and, for the first time, specifically require consideration of effects relevant to environmental justice and climate change. We highlight some of these changes below.

The Phase 2 Final Rule will impact a broad range of projects needing federal authorizations or funding. Many of the efficiency measures included in the Final Rule implement changes that were enacted in the FRA. Although these changes could help address some long-standing issues in the NEPA process around delays and litigation, the effect of the proposed changes will be highly dependent on how the individual federal agencies carry out the changes through their own procedures and implementing regulations. Moreover, the Phase 2 Final Rule makes other important changes to the regulations that, rather than streamlining and improving efficiency, could increase burdens and challenges associated with NEPA compliance.

The Phase 2 Final Rule is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2024. However, industry groups and others already have signaled their frustration with these revisions, including several key members of Congress, led by Senator Joe Manchin, who have announced that they will seek to overturn the Phase 2 Final Rule using the Congressional Review Act.

Provisions Directed Towards Promoting Efficiency and Streamlining

Page Limits and Timelines. The Final Rule makes many small and some larger changes to promote efficiency and streamline the NEPA process. The Final Rule incorporates the FRA’s page limits of 75 pages for environmental assessments (“EAs”), 150 pages for environmental impact statements (“EISs”), and 300 pages for EISs of “extraordinary complexity.” It includes the FRA’s time limits for completion of NEPA documents, requiring completion of EAs within one year and EISs within two years, although it allows for an agency to extend this deadline, in consultation with any project applicant, to the extent necessary to complete the document. To further promote efficiency, the Final Rule also requires agencies to set deadlines and schedules appropriate to specific actions or types of actions.

Categorical Exclusions. The Final Rule also makes substantial changes to its regulations governing CEs that should facilitate agencies’ adoption of CEs as a tool to streamline NEPA compliance in certain circumstances, as allowed under the FRA. It sets forth a process for agencies to adopt and utilize other agencies’ CEs, as allowed under the FRA without having to amend their regulations. The Final Rule clarifies that agencies can establish CEs individually as well as jointly with other agencies. And it allows agencies to establish CEs through land use plans, decision documents supported by a programmatic EIS or EA, or similar planning or programmatic decisions, without having to go through a separate rulemaking process. According to CEQ, by expanding the means by which agencies can establish CEs, these changes will, among other things, encourage agencies to undertake programmatic and planning reviews, as well as promote and speed the process for establishing CEs.

Programmatic Reviews and Tiering. The Final Rule includes various revisions to codify best practices for the use of programmatic NEPA reviews and tiering, which CEQ acknowledges “are important tools to facilitate more efficient environmental reviews and project approvals.”

Provisions that Could Increase NEPA Compliance Burdens

While the Phase 2 Final Rule emphasizes efficiency, it includes a range of regulatory changes that could have the opposite effect, creating additional burdens and potentially perpetuating opportunities for contentious litigation.

Climate Change, Environmental Justice, and Tribal Resources. Reflected in a wide range of revisions to the regulations, the Phase 2 Final Rule aims to further advance the Biden Administration’s policy focus on climate change, environmental justice, and Tribal resources. Among other provisions, the Final Rule explicitly requires agencies to analyze “disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns” and climate change-related effects, including quantification of greenhouse gas emissions where feasible, in their NEPA reviews. Agencies also must review these effects, as well as effects on Tribal rights and resources, in identifying the environmentally preferable alternative or alternatives. Similarly, the Final Rule defines “extraordinary circumstances”—which agencies must consider in determining whether to apply a CE—to include potential substantial disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns, potential substantial climate change effects, and potential substantial effects on historic or cultural properties. Moreover, agencies now “should, where relevant and appropriate, incorporate mitigation measures” to address effects “that disproportionately and adversely affect communities with environmental justice concerns.” And the Final Rule directs agencies, where appropriate, to use projections when evaluating climate change-related effects, including relying on models to project a range of possible future outcomes, provided that they disclose relevant assumptions or limitations. While these codifications are new—particularly the regulation directing agencies to consider mitigation for impacts to environmental justice communities—most agencies have been including some environmental justice and greenhouse gas emission impacts in their NEPA reviews based upon federal governmentwide and agency policy and court precedent.

Major Federal Actions. Implementing changes in the FRA and further responding to changes made in the 2020 rule, the Final Rule revises the definition of “major federal action”—the trigger for environmental review under NEPA. The FRA, in addition to specifying that a major federal action requires “substantial Federal control and responsibility,” established several exclusions including for certain types of projects receiving loans, loan guarantees, or other types of federal financial assistance. In an effort to address some of the uncertainty raised by these exclusions, the revised regulations provide that major federal actions generally include “[p]roviding more than a minimal amount of financial assistance, . . . where the agency has the authority to deny in whole or in part the assistance due to environmental effects, has authority to impose conditions on the receipt of the financial assistance to address environmental effects, or otherwise has sufficient control and responsibility over the subsequent use of the financial assistance” or effects of the funded activity.

Alternatives. The Phase 2 Final Rule clarifies that agencies are not required to consider “every conceivable alternative to a proposed action” but rather only “a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision making.” Additionally, the revised regulations provide that agencies have the discretion, but are not required, to include reasonable alternatives not within the lead agency’s jurisdiction. CEQ continues to anticipate that this will occur relatively infrequently and notes that such alternatives still must be technically and economically feasible and meet the proposed action’s purpose and need. The Final Rule also requires that environmental documents (and not just records of decision) identify one or more environmentally preferable alternatives, which could be the proposed action, the no action alternative, or a reasonable alternative.

Mitigation. Although NEPA has long been understood to be a procedural, rather than substantive, requirement, the Phase 2 Final Rule includes several provisions intended to encourage agencies to mitigate the impacts of proposed actions and to ensure that mitigation measures that agencies rely on in making their environmental determinations are actually carried out. When an agency incorporates and relies upon mitigation measures—whether in its analysis of reasonably foreseeable effects or in a mitigated finding of no significant impact—the revised regulations require the agency to explain the enforceable mitigation requirements or commitments to be undertaken and the authority to enforce them (for example, permit conditions, agreements, or other measures), and to prepare a monitoring and compliance plan.

Development of New Information. While agencies generally historically have not been required to develop data that was not readily available, CEQ “now considers it vital to the NEPA process for agencies to undertake studies and analyses” that provide information “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives,” provided the overall costs are not unreasonable, and includes provisions to that effect in the Final Rule.

Exhaustion, Judicial Review, and Remedies. The Phase 2 Final Rule removes several changes included in the 2020 rule relating to exhaustion, judicial review, and remedies that were intended to reduce NEPA-related litigation and project delays.

The Phase 2 revisions take effect on July 1, 2024, and apply to any NEPA process that commences after that date, although the Final Rule states that agencies may apply them to ongoing activities and environmental documents that commence prior to that date. In addition to following the CEQ regulations, agencies also have adopted agency-specific NEPA implementing procedures. Agencies must revise these procedures to incorporate changes necessitated by the Phase 2 Final Rule by July 1, 2025.

© 2024 Van Ness Feldman LLP
For more news on Environmental Regulation Implementations, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Poor Oversight: Healthcare Company & Owner to Pay $1 Million for Care Plan Oversight Service Billing Fraud

The United States announced that Chicago-based healthcare company Apollo Health Inc. (Apollo), and its owner, Brian J. Weinstein, will pay $1 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations. The claims state that Apollo, under the direction of Weinstein, submitted bills to Medicare for services that were never performed. The case was brought by two whistleblowers who will be rewarded for their efforts.

From December 2014 through March 2017, Apollo allegedly submitted Medicare claims for care plan oversight services (CPO) that did not occur. CPOs detail a physician’s duties to supervise a patient receiving complex medical care. Weinstein allegedly directed Apollo to submit 12,592 CPO service claims for over two dozen providers employed by Apollo, despite Weinstein’s knowledge that no services had been rendered to Medicare patients, and no CPO services were documented in medical records.
Medicare fraud undermines the trust and integrity of the healthcare system, resulting in significant financial burdens on taxpayers. When individuals or organizations engage in fraudulent activities, such as billing for services not rendered or submitting false claims, they siphon funds from Medicare’s intended beneficiaries. Medicare fraud diminishes the resources available for legitimate healthcare services for truly ill Medicare beneficiaries.
The settlement resolves claims brought by two whistleblowers, also known as relators, under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. Javar Jones and Louis Curet, the relators in the case, will receive 20% of the settlement amount for bringing the fraudulent activity to the United States’ attention. Whistleblowers who report fraud against the government via a qui tam lawsuit can earn a 15-25% share of the government’s recovery.

© 2024 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more news on Whistleblower Settlements, visit the Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Fourth Circuit Holds Firm Against Expansion of Religion-Based Defenses to Discrimination (US)

What happened in the interim that ended this beloved educator’s decorated teaching career? In 2014, shortly after North Carolina recognized same-sex marriage, Mr. Billard posted on his personal Facebook page that he and his partner of fourteen years were engaged to be married.

Lonnie Billard was a well-loved and decorated drama and English teacher at Charlotte Catholic High School (CCHS) in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He was named Teacher of the Year in 2012 after serving the Catholic high school’s students for eleven years.

Two years later, CCHS told Mr. Billard he was not welcome back as a teacher.

CCHS has never denied why it fired Mr. Billard: his plans to marry violated the Mecklenburg Diocese’s policy against teachers engaging in conduct contrary to the moral teachings of the Catholic faith. Mr. Billard filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging sex discrimination in employment. The EEOC issued a notice of right to sue. Mr. Billard sued in federal court. He won and was awarded stipulated damages.

If that were the end of the story, although a frustrating one for Mr. Billard and his husband, the case would hardly be newsworthy. Why the case warrants attention is the defense that CCHS did not assert, and why.

The ‘Ministerial Exception’

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, a judicially crafted concept known as the “ministerial exception” emerged among federal appellate courts: Religious institutions may discriminate in their treatment of certain employees, notwithstanding Title VII, provided that the employee plays a vital ministerial employment role or is involved in ecclesiastical matters. Indeed, ministerial exception is a misnomer because the exception is not limited to those employees holding titles of independent religious significance (e.g., priest, pastor, rabbi, imam), but also applies to employees holding important positions within churches and other religious institutions. The Supreme Court recognized the ministerial exception in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012). Although the Court refused to answer directly the question of who is and is not a minister, it found on the facts of the case before it that a “called teacher” with the title of “Minister of Religion, Commissioned” fit the bill.

Hosanna-Tabor was binding law when Mr. Billard filed suit in 2017. CCHS’s obvious defense to Mr. Billard’s allegations of sex discrimination was that he, as a Catholic school teacher engaged to teach his students in accordance with diocesan mission, fell within the ministerial exception, but in an unusual turn of events, CCHS waived this argument. In fact, CCHS stipulated with Mr. Billard that it would not argue that his job duties qualified him for the ministerial exception. Why? CCHS claims that it waived the ministerial exception defense because it wanted to avoid the burden of discovery around the issue of whether Mr. Billard’s role was sufficiently ministerial. (More on that below.) Since CCHS waived the best defense available to it and unequivocally admitted why it fired Mr. Billard, it’s no wonder he prevailed.

The Appeal

On appeal, CCHS propounded four affirmative defenses it had advanced without success at the trial court level – none of which included the ministerial exception. First, CCHS asserted two First Amendment-based defenses: the “church autonomy” doctrine and freedom of association. The trial and appellate courts quickly disposed of both theories, concluding that CCHS’s “church autonomy” argument was another way of trying to dress up the ministerial exception and, as to freedom of association, the courts found “no precedent for privileging a right of expressive association over anti-discrimination laws.” CCHS also asserted a statutory defense under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), but the courts made quick work of this too, finding that the RFRA does not apply to suits between private parties.

But CCHS’s fourth and final argument, and by far its most controversial, was that the trial court should have exonerated it under Title VII’s religious exemption. This notion, which is different than the First Amendment-inspired ministerial exception and derives from the plain text of Title VII, exempts certain religious organizations from Title VII’s non-discrimination strictures “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a). For instance, a Baptist church may favor hiring a Baptist minister or liturgical worship leader over a Methodist or Lutheran candidate, regardless of their respective qualifications. But the religious exemption has only ever been applied as a defense to claims of religious discrimination. Seeking to overturn decades of precedent, CCHS argued in Billard for an unprecedented expansion of the exemption, one that would permit religious organizations to discriminate even on the basis of sex, race or national origin as long as religious belief motivated the employment decision. At oral argument before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, CCHS conceded that its proffered interpretation of the religious exemption would permit discrimination against not only the relatively small number of employees of religious institutions with a claim to ministerial status, but also the hundreds of thousands of groundskeepers, custodians, bus drivers, musicians and administrative personnel that work for such institutions but whose duties are non-ecclesiastical.

An interpretation like that for which CCHS called would seriously erode protections against discrimination. For instance, under CCHS’s interpretation of the religious exemption, if a religious employer asserted as a principle of its faith that women should not work outside the home, it should be permitted to discriminate on the basis of sex. Likewise, under CCHS’s reading of the exemption, a religious employer asserting a faith-based reason for preferring one race over another would be exempt from Title VII consequences. And, to close the loop, if a religious employer held as a religious tenet that being gay or marrying one’s gay partner was a moral lapse, then it should be permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Fourth Circuit balked at CCHS’s statutorily ungrounded argument for an expansion of the religious employer exemption. The text of Title VII is ambiguous and exempts religious organizations “with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion”; it does not protect discrimination against individuals because of religion. The appellate court was also unimpressed by CCHS’s attempt to force a determination on these grounds by earlier waiving the ministerial exception. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit set aside the parties’ waiver and found sua sponte (meaning on the Court’s own initiative), that CCHS was not liable for discrimination for terminating Mr. Billard because he was, notwithstanding his secular teaching subjects, “a messenger of CCHS’s faith.”

The Fourth Circuit explained that it was constrained to reach this outcome based on developing jurisprudence interpreting the ministerial exception. In the years since Mr. Billard filed suit, the Supreme Court expanded on Hosanna Tabor in Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, finding in 2020 that two secular subject teachers at religious schools were nonetheless ministers within the ministerial exception as they were entrusted with educating and forming students in the school’s faith. (Notably, CCHS was represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund was also lead counsel in Our Lady of Guadalupe, a fact which raises a few questions about the plausibility of CCHS’s explanation for waiving the ministerial exception. The Becket Fund claims to be a “leader[ ] in the fight for religious liberty … at home and abroad,” and has fought against COVID-19 mandates, contraception care and LGBT and unmarried parent foster and adoption rights.)

The appellate court’s decision undoubtedly provides little comfort to Mr. Billard, who is now spending his retirement with his husband whom he married in May 2015. But even though the Fourth Circuit reversed judgment in his favor and instructed the trial court to enter judgment in CCHS’s favor on the grounds that the ministerial exception protected the school, it at least rejected CCHS’s request for unfettered license to discriminate on any basis so long as it articulated a faith-based motive for doing so. As CCHS proved victorious and therefore lacks grounds to appeal to the Supreme Court, for now, religious employers remain insulated from civil interference with decisions about the appointment and removal of persons in positions of theological significance—even high school drama teachers—but may not use purported religious beliefs to justify discrimination on other grounds.

© Copyright 2024 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more news on Religious-based Discrimination Defenses, visit the NLR Civil Rights section.

Death, Taxes, and Crypto Reporting – The Three Things You Cannot Escape

The IRS released a draft of Form 1099-DA “Digital Asset Proceeds from Broker Transactions” in April which will require anyone defined as a “broker” to report certain information related to the sale of digital assets. The new reporting requirements will be effective for transactions occurring in 2025 and beyond. The release of Form 1099-DA follows a change in the tax law.

In 2021, Congress amended code section 6045 to define “broker” to include any “person who (for consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of another person.” This is an expansion of the definition of a “broker.” The language ‘any service effectuating transfers of digital assets’ is oftentimes construed by many in the tax practitioner community as a catch-all term, in which the government could use to determine many people involved in digital asset platforms aa “brokers.”

The IRS proposed new regulations in August 2023 to further define and clarify the new reporting requirements. Under the proposed regulations, Form 1099-DA reporting would be required even for noncustodial transactions including facilitative services if the provider is in a “position to know” the identity of the seller and the nature of the transaction giving rise to gross proceeds. With apparently no discernible limits, facilitative services include “services that directly or indirectly effectuate a sale of digital assets.” Position to know means “the ability” to “request” a user’s identifying information and to determine whether a transaction gives rise to gross proceeds. Under these proposed regulations and the expanded definition of “broker,” a significant number of transactions that previously did not require 1099 reporting will now require reporting. There has been pushback against these proposed regulations, but the IRS appears determined to move forward with these additional reporting requirements.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more news on Taxes and Crypto Reporting, visit the NLR Tax section.

The Psychology Behind Distracted Driving: Understanding the Urge to Multitask

There was a time when modern devices like smartphones, GPS devices, and infotainment systems in cars didn’t exist, but drivers still had to contend with other distractions. These included children in the back seat, beautiful scenery, and daydreaming, which are also leading causes of car accidents.

All forms of distractions are dangerous to some extent. But there may be nothing you can do to help in some cases, for example, getting lost in thought while at the wheel.

Activities like talking on the phone, texting, messing with the infotainment system, watching a video clip, etc., call for multitasking and are 100 percent avoidable, especially considering the dangers they pose. But it may not be as easy as it sounds, as it is part of human nature to want to multitask.

What Is Multitasking?

Psychology describes multitasking as the act of handling more than one task at a time. The complexity of multitasking and its effect on the brain depends on the types of activities a person is engaging in at once.

For example, it doesn’t take a lot in terms of brain faculties to listen to music while driving, so such a thing isn’t much of a big deal. However, being in a conference meeting while driving is difficult, as both activities require much more attention, making the chances of getting into a car accident much higher.

How Does Multitasking Affect the Brain?

People handle multitasking differently, but it doesn’t make it safe for anyone while at the wheel. The science behind how the brain functions shows that the human brain can handle one task at a time, so it’s right to say there is nothing like multitasking as far as the brain goes.

What looks like multitasking is actually the brain switching between different tasks at a relatively high speed, but it can only focus on one task at any given millisecond. Eventually, the switching back and forth affects focus, accuracy, and a person’s effectiveness.

The Psychology of Distracted Driving

Distracted driving at face value is a choice. However, if you dig deeper, you will realize it takes much more than making a choice to keep off because it also has something to do with most drivers’ psychology. Technology, especially communication technologies like social media, are built to be attention-grabbing, and the more time you stay on there, the more perceived satisfaction you get.

There is always the allure of knowing what has happened in the past few minutes, how your post is doing, who’s liking it, and stuff like that. This allure and the dopamine hits individuals get from the likes and comments make staying away a battle against the mind.

There is also social pressure, and this is especially true for younger drivers. Since everyone talks of doing it, or how good they are at it, the habit seems less and less risky.

Drives can be boring and too monotonous. For people who love mind-stimulating activities, their minds always crave something exciting that only a device can offer.

You Can Avoid Driving Distracted

It won’t be easy to break a bad habit. But understanding that multitasking is a myth and that it’s only a matter of time till you make a terrible mistake should make you want to think twice about it.

It is a matter of life and death, so the question is not if you like keeping off your devices but if you want to save lives. Be intentional, even when it means putting distractions out of reach until you reach your destination.

Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. 2024
For more news on Avoiding Distracted Driving, visit the NLR Utilities & Transport section.

How to Recover Attorneys’ Fees in a Schedule A Trademark Case in the Northern District of Illinois

In recent years, a substantial number of “Schedule A” trademark infringement cases have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois. In such a case, the trademark owner may file a trademark infringement complaint against a number of defendants, with the complaint identifying the defendants as “The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto.” [See, e.g., Opulent Complaint]

The trademark owner may file Schedule A separately from the complaint with a request to the Court that the schedule be placed under seal. Sometimes, trademark owners file the entire complaint under seal. After filing sealed pleadings that shield the defendants’ identities, the trademark owner may then file ex parte motions for temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) against the secretly-named defendants. Because the proceedings are ex parte, the alleged infringer is not given notice of the proceedings or an opportunity to appear. If the Court grants the TRO, the trademark owner may then present the TRO to online marketplaces with a demand that the marketplaces immediately stop selling the allegedly infringing goods. The result may be that an alleged infringer may find all of its activity frozen by the online marketplace, including a freeze on the alleged infringer’s cash held with the online marketplace. This may create cashflow problems for the alleged infringer and prevent the alleged infringer from making future sales. Because its identity is sealed by the court, an alleged infringer may first learn of the TRO after its accounts are frozen.

Schedule A cases appear to be concentrated in the Northern District of Illinois because judges in that district have been receptive to granting ex parte relief. See, A. Anteau, “The Northern District of Illinois v. the Internet: How Chicago Became the Center of Schedule A Trademark Infringement Litigation”; Law.Com, December 19, 2023. At least two judges in that district even provide templates for TROs, preliminary injunctions and default judgments in Schedule A cases. See Northern District of Illinois (uscourts.gov); Northern District of Illinois (uscourts.gov). The justification for the ex parte nature of these proceedings is that it, if notice was required, online counterfeiters (frequently from China) could hide their assets or move their counterfeit products to new sites as soon as an infringement case was filed.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, remedies and relief do exist if an entity is the subject of a wrongfully obtained ex parte TRO. Recently, Ya Ya Creations, a defendant in a Schedule A trademark case, obtained an attorneys’ fees award against a plaintiff that failed to conduct a proper investigation before naming two Ya Ya-affiliated entities as alleged infringers in a case filed in the Northern District of Illinois. [Award of Fees] The dispute began in August 2021, when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Ya Ya for trademark infringement and a variety of other causes of action in the Eastern District of Texas. The Texas court transferred the case to the Central District of California in April of 2022. Four months after the transfer, the plaintiff filed a very similar lawsuit against Ya Ya in the Middle District of Florida. On May 26, 2023, the Florida court transferred the case to the Central District of California, and then the CD California consolidated the cases due to the similarity of the facts and claims. On September 26, 2023, the plaintiff filed yet another lawsuit. This time, the plaintiff filed a Schedule A trademark infringement case against a number of defendants in the Northern District of Illinois. In the Schedule A case, the plaintiff named two entities affiliated with Ya Ya as alleged infringers.

Notwithstanding the litigation history between the parties, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte TRO against Ya Ya in the Northern District of Illinois. Ya Ya first learned about the TRO after the court issued it and after an online marketplace froze Ya Ya’s accounts.

Ya Ya’s first step in seeking redress was to file an emergency motion asking the court to dissolve the ex parte TRO. [Ya Ya Motion to Dissolve TRO] Ya Ya argued that, because the parties were actively litigating against each other in California, the plaintiff had no basis to seek ex parte relief against Ya Ya or its affiliated entities without notifying Ya Ya of the proceedings. Ya Ya also argued that the plaintiff’s ex parte TRO was a transparent attempt to gain a litigation advantage in the California cases to either leverage a settlement, force Ya Ya into a position where it could not even pay its lawyers to mount a defense, or force Ya Ya to file for bankruptcy. In response to Ya Ya’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss all of its claims against the Ya Ya-affiliated entities.

Ya Ya’s next step was to file a motion for recovery of the attorneys’ fees it expended in the Northern District of Illinois proceedings. [Ya Ya Request for Reimbursement of Attorneys’ Fees]. In response, the plaintiff argued that it was not obligated to pay Ya Ya’s attorneys’ fees, because it did not know the entities it named in the Northern District of Illinois lawsuit were affiliated with Ya Ya. But the court rejected that argument. The court concluded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a court may award attorneys’ fees incurred while defending an ex parte TRO when (1) the TRO caused “needless delay” and unnecessarily “increased the cost of litigation,” or (2) the TRO was obtained by pleadings that were not “well grounded in fact” or made after “reasonable inquiry.” The Court determined that plaintiff could have avoided increasing the costs of litigation if it had conducted a reasonable inquiry to determine if the two entities were affiliated with Ya Ya, but it failed to do so. As a result, the Court awarded Plaintiff to pay Ya-Ya almost $100,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Trademark litigators should be aware that judges in the Northern District of Illinois have been receptive to granting ex parte TROs in trademark cases. If you represent a client that is the subject of an improperly granted ex parte TRO, be prepared to move quickly to dissolve the TRO and consider whether you have a basis to move for an award of attorneys’ fees.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more news on Recovering Trademark Infringement Attorney’s Fees, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

CFTC Releases Artificial Intelligence Report

On 2 May 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) Technology Advisory Committee (Committee) released a report entitled Responsible AI in Financial Markets: Opportunities, Risks & Recommendations. The report discusses the impact and future implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on financial markets and further illustrates the CFTC’s desire to oversee the AI space.

In the accompanying press release, Commissioner Goldsmith Romero highlighted the significance of the Committee’s recommendations, acknowledging decades of AI use in financial markets and proposing that new challenges will arise with the development of generative AI. Importantly, the report proposes that the CFTC develop a sector-specific AI Risk Management Framework addressing AI-associated risks.

The Committee opined that, without proper industry engagement and regulatory guardrails, the use of AI could “erode public trust in financial markets.” The report outlines potential risks associated with AI in financial markets such as the lack of transparency in AI decision processes, data handling errors, and the potential reinforcement of existing biases.

The report recommends that the CFTC host public roundtable discussions to foster a deeper understanding of AI’s role in financial markets and develop an AI Risk Management Framework for CTFC-registered entities aligned with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework. This approach aims to enhance the transparency and reliability of AI systems in financial settings.

The report also calls for continued collaboration across federal agencies and stresses the importance of developing internal AI expertise within the CFTC. It advocates for responsible and transparent AI usage that adheres to ethical standards to ensure the stability and integrity of financial markets.

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
For more news on AI in Financial Markets, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Buy American and Buy European

The Buy American Act was originally passed by Congress in 1933 and has undergone numerous changes across several presidential administrations. While the core of the Act has essentially remained the same, requiring the U.S. government to purchase goods produced in the U.S. in certain circumstances, the domestic preference requirements have changed over the years. While the Buy American Act applies to direct government purchases, the separate (but similarly named) Buy America Act passed in 1982 imposes similar U.S. content requirements for certain federally funded infrastructure projects. Generally, the Buy American Act’s “produced in the U.S.” requirement ensures that federal government purchases of goods valued at more than $10,000 are 100% manufactured in the U.S. with a set percentage of the cost of components coming from the U.S. As of 2024, that set percentage has been increased to 65%. Therefore, the cost of domestic components must be at least 65% of the total cost of components to comply with the rule. Under the existing rules, the threshold will increase to 75% in 2029. These planned changes are consistent with the trend of increasing preferences for domestic goods over time (a trend that has continued across administrations from both sides of the political spectrum).

Unsurprisingly, protectionist policies favoring American production can produce similar protectionist measures enacted by foreign countries. The European Union’s (EU) European Green Deal Industrial Plan (sometimes referred to as the Buy European Act), which includes the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), were both formally adopted within the last few months. The NZIA, which was agreed upon in February, is aimed at the manufacture of clean technologies in Europe and sets two benchmarks for such manufacturing in the EU: (1) that 40% of the production needed to cover the EU will be domestic by 2030; and (2) that the EU’s production will account for at least 15% of the world’s production by 2040. The NZIA contains a list of net-zero technologies, including wind and heat pumps, battery and energy storage, hydropower, and solar technologies. The CRMA, adopted on March 18, sets forth objectives for the EU’s consumption of raw materials by 2030: that 10% come from local extractions; 40% to be processed in the EU; and 25% come from recycled materials. The CRMA also provides that “not more than 65% of the Union’s annual consumption of each strategic raw material at any relevant stage of processing from a single third country.”[1] While Europe’s new acts are perhaps more geared towards raw materials and clean technology, the U.S. and Europe’s concerted efforts to focus on domestic production will be something to watch for years to come. In particular, it is worth watching whether the recent EU measures generate a response from U.S. lawmakers. If so, it could accelerate the already increasing stringency of Buy American and Buy America requirements.

[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-industrial-policy/

by: Kevin P. Daly, Jeffrey J. White , Sabrina M. Galli of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more news on the Buy American Act and the European Green Deal Industrial Plan, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

A Guide for All Medicare Whistleblowers

Becoming a whistleblower and notifying federal authorities of Medicare fraud is a big public service and can even lead to a lucrative whistleblower award. Furthermore, the chief concern for interested whistleblowers is whether they could get reprimanded at their job for blowing the whistle on healthcare fraud or even fired, but any form of whistleblower retaliation is unlawful under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

If you think that you have uncovered evidence of Medicare fraud and want to learn more about what could happen next, here are four things to know.

  1. There are Lots of Known Ways to Defraud Medicare

Medicare is an $800 billion federal program, but estimates are that tens of billions, if not nearly $100 billion of that is lost to fraud every year – and that estimate is widely regarded as a conservative one.

A lot of this type of health care fraud can be categorized into one of the following types of schemes, many of them having to do with fraudulent billing tactics:

  • Phantom billing, where medical goods or services are billed against Medicare even though they were never provided or the purported patient does not exist
  • Double billing for the same goods or services
  • Providing medically unnecessary healthcare
  • Buying prescription drugs with Medicare drug plan money and then reselling them
  • Upcoding, or providing a healthcare service to a patient, but then billing Medicare for a similar but more expensive one
  • Unbundling, or billing for each service independently even though they are normally charged in a discounted package because they are often performed together
  • Paying or taking financial kickbacks for referring patients to a certain healthcare provider, or to a provider that the referring party has a financial stake in

However, these are just the types of Medicare fraud that have been discovered. There are likely other ways of defrauding the program that have yet to be detected. Therefore, even if the evidence that you have uncovered does not fit squarely into one of these types of Medicare fraud does not necessarily mean that it is not a problem.

  1. What Happens After Deciding the Blow the Whistle on Medicare Fraud

Most people are not completely familiar with how other civil or criminal cases move forward in the justice system. Because whistleblower cases are different and even more nuanced and complex, even fewer people understand the process – and those that presume that they are just like other cases find themselves misinformed.

Whistleblower cases are nearly unique in that they have three parties to them:

  1. The whistleblower
  2. The government
  3. The defendant

After you have found evidence of Medicare fraud and abuse, decided to report suspected fraud and become a whistleblower, and hired a law firm well versed in federal laws to represent you, you will continue to gather evidence to support your allegations. This is a sensitive endeavor, as most whistleblowers only have access to the incriminating evidence through their employment, and their employer may be actively trying to cover up the fraudulent activity.

Being represented by an experienced whistleblower lawyer is essential for this stage of the process. They will have gone through it before and will see how to gather evidence to support your case without exposing yourself to the risk of being detected for reporting fraud.

Once you have a strong case, the next step is to present it to the law enforcement agency that would have jurisdiction over your case. Typically you would present information to the Health and Human Services Office or Office of the Inspector General (OIG) hotline. For Medicare fraud, reports are often made to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. The goal is typically to persuade agents there to intervene in your case, conduct the investigation that you started, and prosecute the fraudsters.

If the agency declines to intervene, you can still pursue the case on the government’s behalf.

  1. You Can Receive a Financial Award

One of the main incentives for whistleblowers is the award that they can receive for bringing the evidence to the attention of federal law enforcement. That award can be substantial.

Because Medicare is a federal program, most claims of Medicare fraud advance under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq.). This federal law provides an avenue for whistleblowers who have evidence of fraud against the government.

Importantly, the False Claims Act offers quite generous whistleblower awards, even when compared to other whistleblower statutes. The amount that you receive depends on several factors, the most important of which is whether the government intervened in your case or not. If it did, you can receive between 15 and 25 percent of the proceeds of the case. If it did not and you prosecuted the case on behalf of the government, you can recover up to 30 percent of the case’s proceeds.

Other factors include:

  • Whether there are other whistleblowers who played a role in the case
  • How important the evidence was that you brought to the table
  • Whether you played a part in the Medicare fraud
  1. Your Job is Protected 

Because workplace retaliation is such a foreseeable outcome of becoming a whistleblower, and because the federal government relies so heavily on whistleblowers, it should come as no surprise that the False Claims Act and other whistleblower statutes provide legal protections in the workplace for those who engage in lawful whistleblower activities.

For Medicare fraud whistleblowers, the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), is particularly strong. Not only does it protect you from retaliatory conduct that falls short of termination, like workplace harassment and threats to fire you, it also entitles you to significant remedies if your employer breaks the law and commits an act of reprisal.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2024
For more news on Medicare fraud whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.