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.
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.
- January 06, 2020 by Marc Stephen Raspanti
- Construction, Defense Industry, Federal False Claims Act, Financial Industry, Government Contracts, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Part D, Pharmaceuticals, State False Claims Acts
This is the second part of a two-part article.
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.
On October 28, 2019, the Third Circuit became the most
recent circuit court to determine that the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) other
alternate-remedy provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(5), does not give a relator the
right to intervene in a criminal proceeding. United States v.
The United States recently filed a False Claims Act Complaint in Intervention against Florida-based compounding pharmacy Patient Care America (“PCA”), two PCA employees, as well as the private equity (“PE”) firm that acquired PCA and helped manage the company.
On September 18, 2019, the Department of Justice announced a $21.35 million settlement with compounding pharmacy Patient Care America, PCA executives Patrick Smith and Matthew Smith, and, most notably, the pharmacy’s private equity backer, Riordan, Lewis & Haden Inc. The private equity firm and the pharmacy will fund substantially all of the settlement ($21.036 million).
