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,
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. Wegeler, 2019 WL 5538568,
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).
The Third Circuit ruled on September 12, 2019 that a relator
is not automatically guaranteed a hearing when the government moves to dismiss
a whistleblower action – they need to ask for one. In United States ex rel., Chang v.
Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware,
No.
What Happened
On July 1, 2019, The Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing
Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2019 (“Bill 19”) came into effect that amended
the Corporations Act 2001 and Taxation Administration Act 1953 to provide more
protections for whistleblowers in Australia.
The Background
Prior to Bill 19,
On July 16, 2019, a
district court in California found that not all information that is posted on
the internet is considered a public disclosure by the “news media.” United States ex rel. Integra Med Analytics Llc
v. Providence Health & Servs.,
No. CV 17-1694 PSG (SSx),
What Happened
On July 1, 2016, the Dutch Whistleblowers Act (Wet Huis voor klokkenluiders, “Whistleblowers
Act”) came into effect, requiring all employers
in the Netherlands with 50 employees or more to implement internal reporting
procedures and ban retaliatory acts against employees who report wrongdoing.
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.