During the past year, there were important government reports examining the defrauding of health insurance programs, new trends and government initiatives relating to fraud, and insurance fraud cases involving significant numbers of defendants. When added together, it is not difficult to understand why insurance fraud remains such a key area of focus for government officials, carriers and attorneys.
A recent Fourth Circuit decision held that shareholders must meet a high bar in demonstrating scienter to avoid early dismissal of the case. The decision also shows the fact-intensive approach courts use to distinguish fraudulent statements from those that, even if mistaken, were made innocently.
By undoing some of the higher profile policy changes of the prior administration that many perceived as business-friendly, the current administration has served notice on the business and financial community of a return to practices characteristic of a more aggressive enforcement regime.
Major crisis events, such as political uprisings or financial downturns, are typically followed by an increase in fraud in the business sector and heightened risk to corporate IP and other sensitive information. Anecdotally, this seems to be proving out again in the recent and ongoing fallout from the pandemic. Even before this Great Resignation movement, corporations across the globe were reporting increases in suspicious activity, data leakage, IP theft and other data risks stemming from departing employees and remote workers.
This article discusses the potential criminal and civil penalties that companies can face if their employees engage in insider trading in digital assets, and suggests several measures that exchanges can take to reduce their exposure from such risks.
The past 12 months have seen a steady drumbeat of action by federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies of which in-house counsel should take note. Whether new guidance, regulation, investigations, or enforcement activity, the message is clear: The federal government is paying close attention to how companies are handling and protecting their data — especially consumer and sensitive data.
This article discusses the importance of the "official act" requirement established in McDonnell v. United States, and how its logic should lead to a parallel requirement that private citizens should not be chargeable with the commission of official acts as part of a scheme to deprive the public of honest services.
This article explores a key consideration for companies under government investigation: whether voluntary disclosure of privileged information in an effort to obtain cooperation credit waives the privilege vis-à-vis third parties in subsequent litigation.
Historically, the "fugitive disentitlement" doctrine has foreclosed challenges to criminal charges by a defendant who does not physically submit to a U.S. court's jurisdiction. As a consequence, to make even threshold challenges to an indictment, a defendant who lives abroad must leave home, waive the right to oppose extradition, and risk pre-trial detention in the United States.
You should be thinking about disclosure long before you even hear from a whistleblower, specifically, in terms of setting up policies and procedures governing how to handle the information flow from the investigative side of the house to the disclosure side.
