The Fourth Circuit becomes the most recent Circuit Court to adopt the test for the Anti-Kickback Statute 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b) “that at least one purpose of the remuneration was to induce the referral of services, rather than the primary purpose of the remuneration.” United States v. Mallory,
On April 16, 2020, the Honorable William M. McSwain, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued a sweeping request for help in identifying companies and individuals who seek to “exploit the devastating effects of the coronavirus pandemic for their own benefit.” The Philadelphia United States Attorney’s Office has a long history fighting fraud.
While most compliance programs tout policies and procedures encouraging employees and contractors to internally report their concerns, the reality is that many businesses are unprepared to respond appropriately when they receive a complaint from a whistleblower. This lack of preparation often stems from a critical failure to understand the whistleblower’s concerns and to train frontline managers and compliance professionals on how to speak with internal whistleblowers.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses and individuals around the world are rising to the occasion and ordinary people are doing extraordinary things. We have seen first responders, emergency room physicians, nurses, grocery store workers, and mail carriers go above and beyond their call of duty. One Pennsylvania manufacturer of major league baseball uniforms
The perils of substituting relators in the midst of a qui tam were the highlight of this week’s decision by the Delaware Supreme Court on certification from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Sanofi-Aventis United States Llc, No. 256, 2019, 2020 Del. LEXIS 97 (Mar.
There is strong appeal in the concept of remaining anonymous for many whistleblowers but unless you can prove both a fear of severe harm, and that the fear of severe harm is reasonable, two recent Circuit Court decisions illustrate how unlikely it is that you can remain in the shadows and demonstrates the risks inherent to that pursuit.
What Happened
On January 1, 2020, Amendments to the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption (“Amendments”) came into effect that introduced groundbreaking protections for whistleblowers in Ukraine that rival the protections offered under the United States False Claims Act (“FCA”).
The Motivation
Ukraine has suffered through a longstanding history of corruption.
This is the second part of a two-part article.
In the first of this two-part series, we discussed the success of the United States’ federal False Claims Act (FCA),[1] the rise of international whistleblowers through a study of the Michael Epp case,
On Sept. 27, the U.S. Department of Justice announced criminal charges against 35 individuals across various jurisdictions, allegedly involved in genetic testing fraud schemes that cost taxpayers over $2.1 billion.
The government asserted that the individuals had engaged in audacious schemes to target seniors and the disabled through the ordering of cancer genetic screening,
If you are aware of any person, corporation or entity that you think may be violating the Federal False Claims Act or a State False Claims Act, contact us today.