Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
July 30, 2008

CALIFORNIA

Law Firm Accepts Plea Agreement in Class-Action Lawsuit Kickback Scheme

New York-based Milberg LLP accepted a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced. Under the agreement, the New York-based firm admitted that senior members of its partnership distributed secret kickbacks to plaintiffs involved in over 165 class-action and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The lawsuits at issue span from the 1970s through 2005. The majority of the kickbacks were compensation to individuals for serving as named plaintiffs in Milberg's suits, while others were directed to stockbrokers in return for client referrals. According to the DOJ, Milberg agreed to pay a $75 million fine, employ a compliance monitor, and enact a Best Practices Program for two years. The guilty plea by the firm comes on the heels of similar pleas by four former Milberg partners. One individual defendant remaining in the government's case has been set for an August trial date.

GEORGIA

Former Home Depot Executive Pleads Guilty to Vendor Kickback Scheme and Tax Evasion

A former Home Depot executive pled guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three tax evasion counts. According to the DOJ, from October 2002 up to October 2007, the executive orchestrated a conspiracy to defraud his employer, Home Depot, by taking vendor kickbacks from companies seeking business. He allegedly provided kickbacks to other Home Depot employees both during his employment and continuing after, in order to insure that the products of vendors were included in stores nationwide. According to the DOJ, the kickback schemes totaled more than $2.5 million. In addition to these charges, the executive also pled guilty to federal income tax evasion relating to the payoff income from 2003 through 2005. Sentencing is currently scheduled for Sept. 2, 2008 in Atlanta.

CALIFORNIA

Law Firm Accepts Plea Agreement in Class-Action Lawsuit Kickback Scheme

New York-based Milberg LLP accepted a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California announced. Under the agreement, the New York-based firm admitted that senior members of its partnership distributed secret kickbacks to plaintiffs involved in over 165 class-action and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The lawsuits at issue span from the 1970s through 2005. The majority of the kickbacks were compensation to individuals for serving as named plaintiffs in Milberg's suits, while others were directed to stockbrokers in return for client referrals. According to the DOJ, Milberg agreed to pay a $75 million fine, employ a compliance monitor, and enact a Best Practices Program for two years. The guilty plea by the firm comes on the heels of similar pleas by four former Milberg partners. One individual defendant remaining in the government's case has been set for an August trial date.

GEORGIA

Former Home Depot Executive Pleads Guilty to Vendor Kickback Scheme and Tax Evasion

A former Home Depot executive pled guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and three tax evasion counts. According to the DOJ, from October 2002 up to October 2007, the executive orchestrated a conspiracy to defraud his employer, Home Depot, by taking vendor kickbacks from companies seeking business. He allegedly provided kickbacks to other Home Depot employees both during his employment and continuing after, in order to insure that the products of vendors were included in stores nationwide. According to the DOJ, the kickback schemes totaled more than $2.5 million. In addition to these charges, the executive also pled guilty to federal income tax evasion relating to the payoff income from 2003 through 2005. Sentencing is currently scheduled for Sept. 2, 2008 in Atlanta.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.