Whistleblower Bounties Will Prevent Future Fraud and Scandals

By Lianna Brinded

This article was published on April 15, 2013 in the UK’s International Busines Times.

Guttman says the UK has a lot to learn from the US on whistleblower incentives. The only way to prevent large scale scandals, such as Libor fixing and major financial fraud demonstrated by the collapse of Enron, is by installing bounty programmes that reward those who risk their careers to flag up wrongdoing, says one of the world’s most prominent whistleblower attorneys.

Speaking with the IBTimes UK, Reuben Guttman of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC says that the only way for any country to prevent financial fraud or wrongdoing from spiralling to large scale scandals is by replicating the US programmes and rewards systems for whistleblowers.

“When it comes to complex fraud, such as with UBS client tax evasion or Libor fixing, the only way prosecutors are able to have a solid lead and case, is when insiders come forward with the information,” says Guttman.

“The reality is, the regulators do not have or will not have the resources to investigate and find these forms of information by themselves and many complex fraud cases can be prevented from becoming huge scandals at the detriment to the consumer, shareholder or government, if the right incentives are in place for people who risk their career and employer retaliation,” he adds.

In the US, there are a number programmes, such as ones with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) coupled with the protection through the Dodd-Frank Act, since 2010.

The programmes allow whistleblowers to not only be rewarded for information, depending on the significance of information and how much it results in recovery for the government or shareholders, but also protects them employer retaliation, such as dismissal or being investigated themselves.

UK To Learn From the US?

According to the SEC’s 2012 Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program, the agency received more than 3,000 tips from all 50 states and from 49 countries in a year.

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), previously the Financial Services Authority, has a “whistleblower programme”, but has no reward system for information and various clauses in the law allow companies to skate around the “unfair dismissal” of an employee, as a result of whistleblowing.

“You can bulk enforcement staff at the regulators but you can never beef it up enough to efficiently investigate and enforce compliance,” says Guttman. “For example, the SEC has maybe around one examiner for every $12bn in assets, and it could triple or even quadruple the amount of staff to look into this amount of assets but you would still be massively understaffed. The idea is that you want to basically get to the fraudulent activity before it has a devastating impact on the economy, such as with Tyco, WorldCom and Enron. When Enron collapsed there was a mass loss of jobs and impact on many companies that had dealings with them, but this situation could have been averted if people came forward with information,” he adds.

Guttman has had his fair share of complex litigation and class action cases that have involved the help of whistleblowers.

Serving as lead counsel on several cases, Guttman helped recover $1.6bn for the US government last year in Meredith McCoyd v. Abbott Labs and also represented one of the four main whistleblowers in a case against GlaxoSmithKline that returned over $3bn to the government.

In addition, he represented whistleblower Lynn Szymoniak whose qui tam case, a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed, involving fraudulent mortgage assignments, was resolved as part of the government’s $25bn settlement with some of the world’s largest banks.

“Rewarding whistleblowers work and the UK could learn from the US system. This is the biggest difference between us. The reality is that we will be in dire straits if we didn’t have these people coming forward and one of the main issues why people do not blow the whistle elsewhere is because of the huge financial and reputational risk to themselves without the necessary protection or reward,” says Guttman.

“We depend on private institutions for everything, from energy, finance and healthcare but we expect the public institutions to protect us on very little resource. We have a host of corporations that have leaders that are more like temporary caretakers that operate on boosting margins and gains in the short term. But companies cut corners and it is at the detriment to the consumer, the shareholders and the government,” he adds.

Preventing Widescale Disaster

Guttman said the BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could have been averted if people working at BP had told the relevant authorities about the levels of safety or “corner cutting” the energy firm was conducting, which eventually led to one of the biggest environmental disasters in history.

Similarly, he says the scope and scale of banks attempting to manipulate the world’s most important interbank lending rates could have also been quashed, if the right environment for whistleblowing was installed.

“Whistleblowing is critically important to avert disaster but to also allow transparency, enforcement and learning curves for the regulators to prevail,” says Guttman.

After Barclays, UBS and RBS became the first three banks to settle with a number of US and UK authorities over Libor fixing, the UK has held a raft of hearings to determine the culture and controls that led to the environment where traders were able to manipulate the lending rate for years.

At the beginning of this year, one of the most senior US financial services regulators Thomas Curry encouraged UK politicians to introduce rewards whistleblowers.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said US regulators greatly benefited this incentive in place as it led to the regulator uncovering wrongdoing and misbehaviour at the banks and other financial institutions.

Dr. Caroline Poplin’s Letter to the NY Times Editor in response to David Goldhill’s Op Ed entitled “The Health Benefits That Cut Your Pay”

To the Editor:

With the best intentions, David Goldhill has described a free-market fantasy of health care. Market prices are based on power. In the United States today, hospitals and large doctor groups wield enormous market power, and they exercise it ruthlessly; consumers have none. Hospitals charge whatever the market will bear; uninsured patients pay the highest prices.

Large insurers bargain for “discounts” from prices set high enough so that hospitals still profit, and pass some of the “savings” on to large employers, who also have market power, but not to small businesses or individuals.

Whatever their faults, single-payer systems using government leverage, like the Canadians’ — or Medicare — deliver decent quality care to more people at lower cost. Mr. Goldhill makes the best the enemy of the good.

CAROLINE POPLIN
Bethesda, Md., Feb. 17, 2013

The writer is a primary care physician.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/opinion/how-can-we-make-health-care-work.html?_r=0

Court finds Circle C Construction, LLC, liable for falsifying certifications, but remands for further proceedings to determine damages

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed a District Court ruling holding Circle C Construction, LLC, liable under the False Claims Act for submitting false payroll certifications, while remanding the case for further determinations about damages.  Circle C’s contract –for construction work at a Kentucky military installation –explicitly incorporated the certification requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. § 3142 wage and hour law specifying wage determinations for electrical workers.  Circle C, a contractor with 20 years of experience in government contracts, conceded its knowledge of various Davis-Bacon requirement and stated that one of its co-owners and its bookkeeper attended a training session at the Fort Campbell installation on the prevailing wage requirement for federal government contracts.  Despite its knowledge of these requirements, Circle C did not include the employees of its primary electrical work subcontractors, Phase Tech, on its original certifications, nor did it verify that these workers were paid prevailing wages.  All Phase Tech electrical workers and laborers were paid at least two dollars an hour less than prevailing wages.

The Sixth Circuit found that Circle C’s payroll certifications were expressly false because:

  • they stated that they were complete, when in fact no Phase Tech employees who worked on the project were listed, and
  • they falsely represented that the prevailing wages were paid to subcontracted employees.

The Sixth Circuit overturned the damages award because the estimation of cost to the government by the Supervisory Contract Specialist at the Directorate of Contracting at the Fort Campbell Army Post:

  • lacked specific detail,
  • included projects outside the scope of the amended complaint (in Tennessee instead of Kentucky),
  • did not adequately account for the discrepancies in the relevant sums presented by the parties, and
  • did not accurately represent the difference between what the government paid to Circle C, what Circle C paid to Phase Tech, and the payments to which Circle C would have been entitled in the absence of its fraud.

This reversal and remand for further proceedings on damages indicates that an activity by activity accounting, instead of a general estimated amount based on percentages, might be necessary to effectively calculate damages under the express certification theory.

Comprehensive Conference on Litigation Class Actions

December 6 & 7, 2012 | Chicago, IL

This conference is designed to provide a cutting-edge and in-depth exploration of this vibrant area of the law. Our faculty is comprised of leading class action practitioners, judges and service providers from across the United States who will discuss strategies from both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ perspectives. This two-day conference will include discussions of the latest developments in significant areas of the law affected by class action practice, including recent decisions concerning antitrust, arbitration rights, damages calculations, forum issues, securities and other financial transactions, consumer protection, contracts, false claims act/whistleblower claims, governmental investigations, labor and employment, and Internet privacy, to name just a few.

To Learn More visit Law Seminars International.

U.S. District Judge Rules that Whistleblower Protections Don’t Extend Overseas

U.S. Disctrict Judge Nancy Atlas ruled last week in Houston that whistleblower protections do not apply overseas.  Khaled Asadi filed suit claiming that General Electric retaliated against him after he voiced concern that the company had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Click here for the full article from the Wall Street Journal Corruption & Currents Blog.  http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/07/03/judge-says-anti-retaliation-provisions-dont-cover-foreign-whistleblowers/

1 12 13 14 15 16 32