In a Law360 article (subscription required), Steve Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group, commented on the “controversy” surrounding the requirement some employers impose upon employees to report misconduct internally. Pearlman noted that “[t]he plaintiffs bar and defense attorneys are sharply divided over the issue, with the whistleblower office opposed to mandatory reporting.” Continue Reading
Connie Bertram
Connie Bertram is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the firm's Whistleblowing and Retaliation Group, resident in the Washington DC office.
Lloyd Chinn
Lloyd Chinn is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the firm's Whistleblowing and Retaliation Group, resident in the New York office.
View Author Archive
Steven J. Pearlman
Steven Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the firm's Whistleblowing and Retaliation Group, resident in the Chicago office.
View Author Archive
Harris Mufson
Harris Mufson is an Associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Firm's Employment Litigation & Arbitration and Whistleblowing & Retaliation Groups.
View Author ArchiveLaw360 Quotes Steve Pearlman on Keeping Whistleblower Complaints In-House
Posted in Best PracticesIn a Law360 article (subscription required), Steve Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group, offered ways for companies to minimize their potential whistleblower liability. Underlying Pearlman’s advice is the premise that “[i]t is better for the company and the shareholders alike for complaints to be lodged internally and to be brought to the company’s attention promptly, so they can be swiftly investigated and any underlying concerns can be rooted out.” Continue Reading
C.D. Cal. Greenlights SOX Claim, Analyzing Whether Scienter Must Be Shown Where Violation Of Internal Controls Is Alleged
Posted in SOX Whistleblower Decisions
On April 24, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued its final ruling that a SOX whistleblower complaint survived a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. Zulfer v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., No. 12-cv-08263 (C.D. Cal. April 24, 2013). The decision focused on Plaintiff Catherine A. Zulfer’s (Plaintiff) allegation that she ”reasonably believed” her disclosures regarding certain of Defendant Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (Company) executives’ alleged attempts to circumvent internal procedures concerning discretionary bonuses were related to a violation of SEC rules and regulations. Although the court allowed her to proceed with a claim under Section 806 of SOX, it dismissed her claims under California state law pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because she did not sufficiently allege that accruing the bonuses would have been illegal. Continue Reading
Kinetic Moves To Disqualify Counsel In False Claims Act Qui Tam Action For Improper Use Of Contractor’s Privileged Documents
Posted in False Claims Act
Arguing that relators’ counsel has retained and used, without authority, more than 800 of its attorney-client privileged and work product documents, Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (“KCI”) has asked the District Court for the Central District of California to disqualify opposing counsel in United States ex rel., Steven J. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., Case No. 08-01885 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013).
Two relators, Geraldine Godecke and Steven Hartpence, have brought qui tam actions against KCI alleging that it submitted false claims to Medicare for KCI’s wound care treatment devices in violation of the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). Both relators, who held senior-level positions with KCI, routinely interacted with in-house and outside counsel concerning the company’s legal advice, strategy and tactics. Before she was terminated, Relator Godecke spent the better part of a week downloading hundreds of communications with in-house and outside counsel with the intention of removing them before she was terminated. Continue Reading
New Whistleblower Bounty Law On The Horizon In NY?
Posted in Dodd Frank
On March 22, 2013, the New York State Senate introduced the S4362 Proposal which, through a “bounty,” gives financial awards to whistleblowers who provide original information to the Department of Financial Services (DFS) regarding violations of New York banking, insurance and financial services laws. The Proposal’s bounty program is largely modeled after the programs codified in the securities (Section 922) and commodities (Section 748) whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank). Moreover, the Proposal contains anti-retaliation protections similar to those in Dodd-Frank’s securities, commodities and financial services (Section 1057) whistleblower protection provisions. This post discusses the scope of the Proposal’s coverage, as well as the breadth of its bounty program and anti-retaliation protections. Continue Reading
New York Times Quotes Lloyd Chinn on “Sharper Focus” of Internal Whistleblower Compliance Policies
Posted in SECIn an article published by the New York Times yesterday, Lloyd Chinn, Co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Group, commented on the recent efforts of some companies to strengthen their whistleblower compliance programs internally so that employees will report alleged fraud to the company before informing the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). Continue Reading
Fifth Circuit: No Fee Shifting For Title VII Mixed-Motive Retaliation Claims
Posted in Title VII
On April 3, 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that a plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g)) where a jury returned a verdict in his favor on his retaliation claim because (it found) the employer would have taken the same challenged action in the absence of protected activity even though it had an impermissible motive. Carter v. Luminant Power Servs. Co., No. 12-cv-10642, 2013 WL 1337365 (5th Cir. April 3, 2013). Continue Reading
Recent Multi-Million Dollar Whistleblower Jury Awards — A Wake-Up Call For Employers
Posted in State-Specific Whistleblower Claims
In what might be an unsettling trend for employers, juries in Philadelphia and Anchorage have recently issued multi-million dollar jury awards in favor of whistleblowers. Specifically, on March 22, 2013, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court jury awarded Plaintiff-whistleblower Marla Pietrowski $1.7 million for her claims under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and Ms. Pietrowski’s fee petition, which could result in an additional $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, is pending. A few days after the Pietrowski award, an Anchorage, Alaska jury awarded Plaintiff-whistleblower Paul Blakeslee $3.5 million for his claim under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). These awards are concerning for additional reasons discussed below. Continue Reading
ARB Says Equitable Modification of SOX Statute of Limitations Saves Untimely Complaint
Posted in SOX Whistleblower Decisions
On March 29, 2013, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) ruled that a “standstill” agreement between an employer and employee that required both parties to provide notice before initiating legal proceedings warranted equitable modification of SOX’s statute of limitations period. Turin v. AmTrust Fin. Servs., Inc. et al., ARB No. 11-062 (Mar. 29, 2013). Continue Reading
Whistleblowing in the UK – the latest developments and a review of the law
Posted in International
In recent months, the UK has seen a growing focus on the protection afforded to whistleblowers. This attention has emerged because of recurring question linking diverse scandals, such as phone hacking and those that have hit the health service and the banking sector: namely, would a different system to encourage and protect whistleblowers have mitigated or even avoided the problems that have emerged. Continue Reading