Recent Posts
Follow Us
twittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube
The Legal Stuff
Government Enforcement Exposed - "The GEE"
0 0

20 Jan 2016 THE SUPREME COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI IN SALMAN

  Score one for the tea leaf readers. For the last past year, since the Second Circuit issued its watershed insider trading opinion in United States v. Newman, we have followed the fall-out from that decision and speculated whether the time was ripe for the Supreme Court to address this issue again. (See previous posts here.)  In the government’s petition for Supreme Court review, it argued that Newman gutted Dirks and created numerous negative consequences for the country’s financial markets.   Back in August, we suggested that the Court might choose not to grant certiorari in Newman because it appeared not to be an optimal vehicle for addressing whether insider trading can arise simply from a close family relationship between the insider and tippee.  We…

READ MORE
0 0

06 Jan 2016 STARTING THE NEW YEAR WITH A CLEAN SLATE: INDIANA’S EXPUNGMENT STATUTE ENCOMPASSES SOME CIVIL FORFEITURES

  At the close of 2015, a divided Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that an individual with a civil forfeiture action that is related to a criminal conviction could seek to expunge not only the criminal records but the civil records based on the underlying conviction. This (albeit limited) development is important because of the increasing scrutiny on the use of civil forfeiture in the face of criticism over its inequities.  (See a previous Government Enforcement Exposed blog post on civil forfeiture here.)   Civil forfeiture actions often arise when the government locates money or items during an investigation or search based on alleged criminal activity. The case before the court was no exception.  In D.A. v. State of Indiana, D.A. sold cocaine to a…

READ MORE
0 0

28 Dec 2015 U.S. Supreme Court to Decide the Validity of the False Claims Act’s Implied Certification Theory

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the First Circuit case Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar to decide the validity and application of the implied certification theory of the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA imposes civil liability for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim to the government for payment or approval. Courts have recognized two types of FCA claims: those that are factually false and those that are legally false. Legally false claims are founded on a false certification of compliance with a federal statute, regulation or contractual requirement and are further categorized as either expressly or impliedly false. An expressly false certification may occur when a request for payment explicitly certifies compliance, whereas the doctrine…

READ MORE
0 0

24 Nov 2015 DOJ Fraud Section Retains New Compliance Counsel

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Fraud Section recently retained Hui Chen as a full-time compliance expert reporting to the chief of the Fraud Section and the acting chief of the Strategy, Policy, and Training Unit in the Fraud Section. Formerly a federal prosecutor, Ms. Chen most recently served as global head for Anti-Bribery and Corruption at Standard Chartered Bank (SCB). Ms. Chen’s vita also includes her time as assistant general counsel in the Compliance Division of Pfizer, Inc., as well as significant in-house and compliance positions at Microsoft Corporation, to include Director of Legal Compliance for the Greater China Area.   Beginning Nov. 3, Ms. Chen “will provide expert guidance to Fraud Section prosecutors as they consider the enumerated factors in the United States Attorneys’…

READ MORE
0 0

23 Nov 2015 Federal Prisoner Release: The First Step of a More Ambitious Plan

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has caused quite a stir recently due to its anticipated early release of an approximately 6,000 prisoners convicted of drug possession and/or drug trafficking crimes. Much of the debate between opponents and advocates of the mass release has focused on its impact on public safety. Yet, many of its critics are completely unaware of the fact that these events were set in motion more than a year ago, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to amend the federal sentencing guidelines with respect to drug offenses. What may be even more troubling to critics of the Bureau and Commission’s actions is that this is likely only the first step toward a more ambitious reform – the elimination of mandatory minimum…

READ MORE
0 0

16 Nov 2015 SEC Reduces Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Award for “Unreasonable Delay,” Announces Policy of “More Heavily” Punishing Delay After Award Program’s Implementation

Continuing our coverage of the SEC’s whistleblower award program, the SEC recently announced a notable award order. What is notable about this award is not the size of the bounty, but the fact the SEC reduced the award for “unreasonable delay” in reporting, stating for the first time that “the award could have been higher had this whistleblower not hesitated.”   As we have previously discussed, the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower award program permits the SEC to award whistleblowers a bounty between 10 percent and 30 percent of an enforcement sanction. While this is not the first time the SEC reduced an award due to a claimant’s delay, the SEC had mitigated its prior reductions by noting the delays pre-dated the Dodd-Frank Act. Here, in contrast,…

READ MORE
0 0

06 Nov 2015 Protected Activity and Individual Liability: Broadened Interpretations of the False Claims Act Anti-Retaliation Provision

The False Claims Act’s (FCA) anti-retaliation provision allows private whistleblowers to file an FCA complaint without retaliation from their employers. A series of 2015 decisions interpreting the recent amendments to the FCA indicate that courts have increasingly broadened their view as to which types of activities are protected under the anti-retaliation provisions and whom they may be brought against. The expansion of protected activities and persons covered requires corporate entities to be aware of the inevitable increase in anti-retaliation actions due to the broadened scope of the FCA’s whistleblower protections.   Prior to 2009, the anti-retaliation provisions protected only those acts done in furtherance of an FCA qui tam action. Protected activity included only that which provided an employer notice of possible litigation. The passage…

READ MORE
0 0

05 Nov 2015 “Hide No Harm Act Of 2015” Targets Employers, Directors and Officers

The 114th Congress has now taken up the policy recently announced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the Yates Memo. The Hide No Harm Act (S.2140) would impose criminal penalties upon corporate officers who fail to advise an appropriate federal agency of “serious danger associated with a product, service or business practice.” Corporate officers who fail to notify an appropriate agency of the federal government regarding any serious danger associated with a covered product, service or business practice within twenty-four hours of the individual receiving notice of such dangers could be punished by a fine and imprisonment for up to five (5) years. A fine imposed upon an individual for violating the Act “may not be paid, directly or indirectly, out of the assets…

READ MORE
0 0

27 Oct 2015 Update from the Coscia Trial

Yesterday, the United States began its prosecution of Michael Coscia of Panther Energy Trading LLC for allegedly engaging in “the crime of spoofing,” as prosecutors framed it. We have blogged about this case before (here and here) and discussed it in the media in the following outlets: Bloomberg News, Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Crain’s Chicago Business and the Chicago Tribune.   In his opening statement, Assistant United States Attorney Renato Mariotti tried to make high frequency trading rudimentary, understandable, and impactful for the jurors. He used very basic analogies and explanations, in order to build a simple case. According to Mariotti, Coscia manipulated markets by using two trading programs—“Flash Trader” and “Quote Trader”—to make it appear there was more supply or demand in the…

READ MORE
0 0

08 Oct 2015 Regulation S-P Violation: Are You Prepared For A Cyber-Security Breach?

On Sept. 22, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the first violation by a registered investment advisor of the so-called Safeguards Rule (Regulation S-P) pertaining to the protection of personally identifiable information from cyber-attack.  This is the first instance of the SEC enforcing Regulation S-P against an investment advisor.   The Regulation, broadly speaking, requires broker-dealers, investment advisers and other financial firms to protect confidential customer information from unauthorized release to unaffiliated third parties. Included in Regulation S-P is the “Safeguard Rule” (Rule 30(a)), which requires financial institutions to, among other things, adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect customer information against cyber-attacks.  This raises the question:  Are you prepared for a cyber-attack (and the attendant liability)?   In its findings,…

READ MORE