Tag: qui tam

Wine Seller Victory in Illinois Qui Tam Lawsuit

Wine sellers received a second positive update just this week in the qui tam winery lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On September 3, 2015, Judge Margaret Ann Brennan granted Motions to Dismiss filed by Co-Defendants, 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. and TSG, LLC in a two-count False Claims Act complaint. In Count I, the Relator alleged that the out-of-state wine-seller defendants failed to pay local sales tax, owed through obligations under the Illinois Liquor Control Act; and Count II was the all too familiar allegation that defendants failed to collect and remit tax on shipping and handling charges for the wine they sold and shipped into Illinois.

Whisle with closed zipper - 3D concept

After months of briefing and a lengthy oral argument, Judge Brennan granted our Motions to Dismiss both Counts I and II of Relator’s Second Amended Complaint. Regarding Count I, Judge Brennan said that the Wine Shippers License, required to be held by wine sellers in Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Liquor Control Act (“LCA”), does not obligate local tax collection or remittance as argued by Relator. Specifically, Relator alleged that because the out-of-state wine sellers failed to comply with the LCA by improperly selling some wine that they did not produce, that they must be considered Illinois retailers and thus must collect and remit local tax. The parties agreed that Defendants did collect and remit the 6.25% use tax required on sales made into Illinois, but Judge Brennan noted that it would take an absurd leap in interpreting the LCA to conclude that it obligated Defendants to collect local sales tax as well. Important points were also made that local tax is based on the location where the seller is in the “business of selling” and that all of the “selling activities” occurred outside Illinois. Also, the LCA contains its own remedies for failing to comply with the Wine Shippers License, none of which relate to tax collection.

Regarding Count II, Judge Brennan was convinced that the Defendants’ disclosure of shipping and handling charges deducted from their gross receipts on their monthly Illinois returns (ST-1s) was sufficient to take this claim out of a knowingly made, False Claims Act issue. The Defendants met their obligation of monthly filing and there was no proof that the Department felt Defendants should have been collecting and remitting tax on the shipping and handling charges. Even if it was ultimately deemed inaccurate in an audit by the Department, it was still a truthful disclosure to the Department, not a knowing, false statement.

What Does “with Prejudice” Mean?

Significantly, Judge Brennan dismissed the claims with prejudice, meaning the Relator cannot re-plead claims, in this case, for a fourth time. The only options for the Relator at this point would be a Motion to Reconsider (unlikely because the Judge was emphatic and thorough in her decision) or to appeal the decision to the Illinois Appellate Court. Because these same issues are in hundreds of other cases before Judge Mulroy, it is unlikely that Relator will appeal this one-off decision by Judge Brennan. If Relator appeals and the dismissal is upheld, that would create legal precedent that would hurt Relator in all of his other cases pending and yet to come before Judge Mulroy.

So while it is great news that Judge Brennan decided correctly on these issues, where Judge Mulroy has consistently held that questions of fact remain and the defendants are thus forced to pay large settlement amounts or litigate through trial, the sobering news is that her ruling is not legal precedent for Judge Mulroy, another Circuit Court Judge; and it is Judge Mulroy who oversees the vast majority of the winery qui tam lawsuits.

Moving Your Case to a New Judge

You are most certainly asking at this point: How do we move our case to Judge Brennan? Because of the protections put in place against forum and judge shopping, it is extremely difficult and depending on how far you are into the case, potentially impossible. The first step would seem to be a simple one, however, by taking advantage of the Illinois law allowing for a substitution of judge as long as no substantive rulings have been made by the judge yet.

Article By David S. Ruski of Horwood Marcus & Berk

© Horwood Marcus & Berk Chartered 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Jury Awards $1.6M to Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower

A New York federal jury awarded $1.6M in compensatory damages to a whistleblower in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation lawsuit. The verdict is consistent with a recent trend of large jury verdicts in whistleblower retaliation claims, including a six million dollar verdict in the Zulfer SOX case. According to the verdict form, the full amount of the verdict awarded to whistleblower Julio Perez was for compensatory damages. Under the whistleblower provision of SOX, there is no cap on compensatory damages.

While employed at Progenics Pharmaceuticals as a Senior Manager of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Perez worked with representatives of Progenics and Wyeth to develop Relistor, a drug that treats post-operative bowel dysfunction and opioid-induced constipation. In May 2008, Progenics and Wyeth issued a press release stating that the second phase of trials “showed positive activity” and that the two companies were “pleased by the preliminary findings of this oral formulation” of Relistor. Within two months of the issuance of the press release, Wyeth executives sent a memo to Progenics senior executives informing them that the second phase of clinical trials failed to show sufficient clinical activity to warrant a third phase of trials. The Wyeth memo specifically stated: “Do not pursue immediate initiation of Phase 3 studies with either available oral tablets or capsule formulations.”

Perez saw the confidential Wyeth memo and on August 4, 2008, he sent a memo to Progenics’ Senior Vice-President and General Counsel in which he alleged that Progenics was “committing fraud against shareholders since representations made to the public were not consistent with the actual results of the relevant clinical trial, and [Plaintiff] think[s] this is illegal.” The next day, Progenics’ General Counsel questioned Perez about the confidential Wyeth memo. Progenics then terminated Perez’s employment, claiming he had refused to reveal how he had obtained the Wyeth memorandum.

Perez brought suit under SOX, alleging that Progenics terminated his employment because of his August 4, 2008 Memorandum, and denying that he refused to answer questions about his access to the Wyeth memo. Progenics again claimed that it terminated Perez’s employment because he failed to explain how he got the memo. The memo’s intended recipients denied giving Perez a copy of the memo. During the litigation, Perez argued that the memo was distributed widely within Wyeth and that he had not “misappropriated” it.

Following an investigation, OSHA did not substantiate Perez’s SOX complaint. Perez removed his SOX complaint to federal court in November 2010. On July 25, 2013, Judge Kenneth Karas issued an order denying Progenics’ motion for summary judgment. The case was hard-fought, with more than 120 docket entries concerning pre-trial matters. Perez was represented by counsel when he filed his SOX claim in federal court, but proceeded pro seshortly before Progenics moved for summary judgment through trial.

Recent Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Jury Verdicts

On March 5, 2014, a California jury awarded $6 million to Catherine Zulfer in her SOX whistleblower retaliation against Playboy, Inc. (“Playboy”).  Zulfer, a former accounting executive, alleged that Playboy had terminated her in retaliation for raising concerns about executive bonuses to Playboy’s Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer.  Zulfer v. Playboy Enterprises Inc., JVR No. 1405010041, 2014 WL 1891246 (C.D.Cal. 2014).  She contended that she had been instructed by Playboy’s CFO to set aside $1 million for executive bonuses that had not been approved by the Board of Directors.  Id.  Zulfer refused to carry out this instruction, warning Playboy’s General Counsel that the bonuses were contrary to Playboy’s internal controls over financial reporting.  Id.  After Zulfer’s disclosure, the CFO retaliated by ostracizing Zulfer, excluding her from meetings, forcing her to take on additional duties, and eventually terminating her employment.  Id.  After a short trial, a jury awarded Zulfer $6 million in compensatory damages and also ruled that Zulfer was entitled to punitive damages.  Id.  Zulfer and Playboy reached a settlement before a determination of punitive damages.  The $6 million compensatory damages award is the highest award to date in a SOX anti-retaliation case.  Id.

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a SOX jury verdict awarding $2.2 million in damages, plus $2.4 million in attorneys’ fees, to two former in-house counsel.  Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 549 F. App’x 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2013).  The plaintiffs, both former in-house counsel at International Game Technology, alleged that they had been terminated in retaliation for disclosing shareholder fraud related to International’s merger with rival game company Anchor Gaming.  Id.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Anchor had withheld important information about its value, causing International to commit shareholder fraud by paying above market value to acquire Anchor.  Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2009).  When the plaintiffs discovered the issue, they brought their concerns about the potential fraud to their boss, who had served as Anchor’s general counsel prior to the merger. Id. at 993.  International terminated both plaintiffs shortly thereafter. Id. 

In addition, a former financial planner at Bancorp Investments, Inc. who alleged that he was terminated for disclosing trade unsuitability obtained a $250,000 jury verdict in the Eastern District of Kentucky in late 2013.   Rhinehimer v. Bancorp Investment, Inc., 2013 WL 9235343 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 27, 2013), aff’d 2015 WL 3404658 (6th Cir. 2014).

Zulfer, Van Asdale, and Rhinehimer highlight the importance of the removal or “kick out” provision in SOX that authorizes SOX whistleblowers to remove their claims from the Department of Labor to federal court for de novo review 180 days after filing the complaint with OSHA.

ARTICLE BY Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law

© 2014 Zuckerman Law

Whistleblower Law Firm Files Amici Curiae Brief in DC Whistleblower Protection Act Case

An amici curiae brief  was filed recently in Tucker v. DC on behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association and the Government Accountability Project. The brief urges the DC Court of Appeals to apply the correct burden-shifting framework in DC Whistleblower Protection Act cases.  In Tucker, the trial court gave pretext and business judgment instructions, both of which are contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the DC WPA.

The amici curiae brief argues that the DC Court of Appeals should correct the following three errors in the jury instructions:

  • First, the trial court erred when it instructed the jury to resolve the employee’s claim by performing a McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting analysis.  Applying the McDonnell-Douglas analysis alongside the DC WPA’s standards creates a confusing and contradictory task for the jury. In the second phase of the McDonnell-Douglasanalysis the employer need only argue a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. In contrast, the DC WPA’s statutory text explicitly mandates that the employer must prove its explanation by clear and convincing evidence, a much higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence. DC Code § 1-615.54(b). Because of this difference, the standards are fundamentally incompatible.

  • Second, the trial court erred by requiring the jury to reach a decision on the plaintiff’s showing that the employer’s alleged business reasons were pretext, when the DC WPA does not require such a showing.

  • Third, the trial court erred by instructing the jury to weigh the employer’s evidence of its “business judgment” against the employee’s showing by preponderance of the evidence standard rather than applying the higher, clear and convincing evidence standard to the employer’s evidence. The DC WPA applies different burdens of persuasion to the employee’s and employer’s showings. See DC Code § 1-615.54(b). A whistleblower’s initial showing is weighed under the “preponderance of the evidence.”  This means necessarily that the employer’s evidence of a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the employer’s action – which must be proven by the far more burdensome “clear and convincing” standard – should not be weighed against a whistleblower’s initial showing.

The brief also argues that the standard for causation should track the statutory language – an employee must show that her protected disclosure was a “contributing factor” in a personnel decision, and then DC can prevail if it establishes by “clear and convincing” evidence that it would have made the same decision for independent, legitimate reasons absent the protected disclosure.

ARTICLE BY Jason Zuckerman of Zuckerman Law
© 2014 Zuckerman Law

DaVita Agree to $495 Million Settlement in Alleged Medicare Fraud Lawsuit Filed by Qui Tam Whistleblowers

On Monday, May 4, 2015, DaVita Kidney Care, a division of DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc. (DaVita), and one of the leading dialysis services providers in the United States, agreed to pay the U.S. Government $450 million for allegedly violating the False Claims Act (FCA) when it continuously discarded good medicine and then billed Medicare and Medicaid for it. DaVita also agreed to pay $45 million for legal fees.

According to the lawsuit filed in 2011 by two former employees of DaVita, between 2003 and 2010, when DaVita administered iron and vitamin supplements such as Zemplar, Vitamin D, and Venofer, vials containing more than what the patients needed were used and the rest was thrown away. For example, if a patient only needed 25 milligrams of medicine, DaVita allegedly used a 100 milligram vial, administered only 25 mg, and tossed the rest in the trash. Although before 2001, this practice was condoned by the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in order to prevent infectious outbreaks caused by the re-entry of the same vial of medicine, the CDC subsequently changed it policies to outlaw this practice.

This FCA lawsuit alleging that DaVita misused and mishandled of medicine, and overbilled Medicare and Medicaid is not the first such allegation against DaVita, which is not a stranger to FCA lawsuits. In fact, DaVita previously settled two other lawsuits in which it allegedly violated the FCA. In October 2014, DaVita agreed to pay the U.S. Government $350 million for allegedly persuading physicians or physician groups to refer their dialysis patients to DaVita by offering kickbacks for each patient referred. And in 2012, DaVita agreed to pay $55 million to the federal government for overbilling the government for Epogen, an anemia drug. These lawsuits were filed by former employees who decided to come forward as whistleblowers and to help to uncover what they considered to be illegal practices by DaVita. Under the FCA, such whistleblowers can bring what is known as a “qui tam” lawsuit, which is brought by a private citizen to recover money obtained by fraud on the government. As an incentive to bring qui tam lawsuits, the FCA provides that qui whistleblowers receive between 15 and 30 percent of the amount of funds recovered for the government.

Provisions of the FCA make it unlawful for a person or company to defraud governmental programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid.

Posted by the Whistleblower Practice Group at Tycko & Zavareei LLP

© 2015 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP

New Jersey Pharmaceutical Company Agrees to Pay $39 Million to Settle Alleged Anti-Kickback Violations

tz logo 2

On January 9, 2015, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that pharmaceutical company Daiichi Sankyo, headquartered in New Jersey, agreed to pay the Government $39 million to settle claims that it violated the Anti-Kickback Statue and the False Claims Act (FCA) by allegedly incentivizing physicians to prescribe Daiichi drugs by providing kickbacks to those doctors.  The drugs prescribed as a result of those alleged kickbacks were billed under the Medicare or Medicaid Program, and thus paid for, at least in part, by the government.  This lawsuit was filed by former Daiichi sales representative Kathy Fragoules under the qui tam whistleblower provision of the FCA.  Fragoules will receive an award of $6.1 million, which represents approximately 15 percent of the settlement amount, for exposing Daiicho Sankyo’s alleged illegal practices.

The qui tam lawsuit, originally filed on behalf of the government by Fragoules, claims that for a period of six years, from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2011, Daiichi Sankyo allegedly devised a scheme to promote several of its drug products by offering monetary kickbacks to physicians that prescribed Daiichi drugs to their patients.  The Physician Self-Referral Statue and the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibit anyone from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration in order to induce business reimbursed under the Medicare or Medicaid programs.  However, according to the government, Daiichi allegedly orchestrated kickback compensation to physicians in the form of speaker fees by allegedly funneling payment to health care providers through the Daiichi’s Physician Organization and Discussion programs known as PODs.  In doing so, the government claims that Daiichi knowingly and willfully violated the FCA.

Physician drug ordering and prescribing decisions continue to be influenced by the drug industry.  Last year, the DOJ reported billions in settlements in connection with the pharmaceutical industry arising out of violations of the Physician Self-Referral Statue and the Anti-Kickback Statue.  The government also paid out millions in awards to individuals and whistleblowers that exposed these alleged illegal practices through the filing of qui tam lawsuits under the FCA.  A whistleblower who files a case against a company that has committed fraud against the government, may receive compensation of up to 30 percent of the amount ultimately recovered by the government.

ARTICLE BY

Jonathan Tycko
OF
Tycko & Zavareei LLP

U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division Implements Procedure to Immediately Review Civil Division Qui Tam Cases

vonBriesen

Recently, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) said that the Criminal Division implemented a new procedure related to qui tam cases. Under the new procedure, the Criminal Division will immediately review qui tam cases it receives from the DOJ’s Civil Division to determine whether to open a criminal investigation into the case. If the Criminal Division opens an investigation, it will work with the Civil Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices to coordinate parallel investigations.

The announcement can be found here.

ARTICLE BY

William O. Jackson
OF
von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Department of Defense Contractors Agree to Pay the U.S. Government $5.5 Million for Allegedly Supplying the Military with Low-Grade Batteries for Humvee Gun Turrets Used in Iraq; Minnesota Whistleblower to Receive $990,000

tz logo 2

On September 16, 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Department of Defense (DOD) contractors, M.K. Battery, Inc. (M.K. Battery), East Penn Manufacturing Company (East Penn), NPC Robotics, Inc. (NPC), BAE Systems, Inc. (BAE) and BAE Systems Tactical Vehicle Systems LP (BAE) had agreed to a settlement of $5.5 million for allegedly violating the False Claims Act (FCA) by selling the U.S. Military substandard batteries for Humvee gun turrets used on military combat vehicles in Iraq. Minnesota whistleblower, David McIntosh, former employee of M.K. Battery, will receive $990,000 which represents his share of the settlement for reporting fraud against the government – in this case misrepresentation of a vital product supplied to the DOD.

A gun turret is a weapon mount that protects the crew or mechanism of a projectile-firing weapon and at the same time lets the weapon be aimed and fired in many directions. Sealed acid batteries are used as a backup to turn the turrets on the Humvees in the event that the engine gives out.  According to Mr. McIntosh, and unbeknownst to the Army, the manufacturing process of the batteries was allegedly changed from the original design presented to the DOD, consequently cutting the battery’s life span by as much as 50 percent and potentially putting U.S. Troops in harm’s way.  Mr. McIntosh, from Stacy, Minnesota, who at the time was employed by M.K. Battery as a regional sales representative, brought his concerns to top company officials at M.K. Battery.  However, in 2007 after numerous unsuccessful attempts to convince M.K. Battery that its decision to cut costs on these batteries could be hazardous to U.S. Troops, especially during combat, Mr. McIntosh alerted the DOD to this matter.  Three month later, M.K. Battery fired Mr. McIntosh.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. McIntosh and his attorneys filed the lawsuit under the whistleblowersprovisions of the False Claims Act, which is one of the most effective methods that the government has implemented for combating fraud. Under the FCA, any person, who knows of an individual or company that has defrauded the federal government, can file a “qui tam” lawsuit to recover damages on the government’s behalf.  Mr. McIntosh filed this particular lawsuit on behalf of himself and the Department of Defense. Additionally, a whistleblower who files a case against a company that has committed fraud against the government, may receive an award of up to 30 percent of the settlement. In this case, Mr. McIntosh’s share of $5.5 million is approximately 18 percent of the settlement.

ARTICLE BY

Whistleblower Practice Group
OF
Tycko & Zavareei LLP
© 2014 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP