The Five Largest SEC Whistleblower Awards from the First Half of 2024

In the first half of 2024, the SEC Whistleblower Program awarded over $18 million to whistleblowers who aided in the agency’s enforcement efforts. Below are the top five awards from the first half of 2024.

Since its inception in 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Whistleblower Program has made significant strides, granting over $1.9 billion in whistleblower awards. In the first half of 2024, over $18 million was awarded to individuals who voluntarily provided original information that led to a successful enforcement action, a testament to the program’s effectiveness.

Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers can receive 10-30% of the funds collected from a successful enforcement action based on their tip. The SEC does not disclose identifying information about award recipients, ensuring their protection and the program’s integrity.

Following are the top five whistleblower awards of the first half 2024:

1. $3.6 Million

On June 17, the SEC granted two claimants a total of $3.6 million, with the first receiving $2,400,000 and the second receiving $1,200,000.

The SEC acknowledged the significant contribution of the first Claimant whose disclosure “caused the staff to open the investigation” and “provided ongoing assistance by participating in interviews and providing documents, which saved Commission resources by helping the staff obtain information in an efficient manner.”

Claimant Two “provided information that caused the staff to inquire concerning different conduct as part of a current investigation” and “provided ongoing assistance by participating in interviews and providing documents, which helped to expedite the staff’s investigation,” according to the award order.

The award document noted that Claimant Two received a reduced reward for reporting information to the commission months after the staff had opened its investigation. Furthermore, it was noted that Claimant One provided a higher level of assistance than Claimant Two and that Claimant One’s information ultimately formed the basis of more charges in the Covered Action.

2. $3.4 Million.

On May 31, the SEC granted a payment of $3.4 million to a single Claimant. Five others filed for an award for the Covered Action but were denied.

According to the SEC, “Claimant voluntarily provided original information that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action,” underscoring whistleblowers’ crucial role in enforcing securities regulations.
“Enforcement staff opened the Covered Action investigation based on a referral from staff in the Division of Examinations, and not because of information submitted by any of the claimants.” the agency states.

However, it notes that the whistleblower “met with Enforcement staff” and “provided new, helpful information that substantially advanced the investigation.

The SEC further explains that the awarded whistleblower suffered hardship as a result of blowing the whistle and that there were “high law enforcement interests in this matter.”

Two of the Claimants were denied because they did not have personal knowledge of the investigation’s opening. One Claimant was denied because their tip was primarily publicly available information, and another was denied because their information did not lead to the success of the Covered Action.

3. $2.5 MILLION

On June 20, the SEC awarded $2.5 million to Joint Claimants.

According to the SEC, “the record demonstrates that Joint Claimants voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.”

The Joint Claimants “alerted Commission staff to the conduct, prompting an examination to be commenced that resulted in a referral to staff in the Division of Enforcement and the opening of an investigation,” the SEC explains in the award order.

They also “provided significant additional information and assistance during the course of the examination and investigation, including communicating with Commission staff multiple times, which helped to save staff time and resources.”

4. $2.4 Million

On April 3, the SEC granted two claimants a combined award of $2,400,000. The first Claimant received $2 million, and the second received $400,000.

According to the SEC, “Claimant 1 qualifies as a whistleblower and Claimant 1 voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that caused Enforcement staff to open an investigation that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.”

However, in 2022, Claimant 2 was originally denied as the SEC claimed that their disclosure was made by a general counsel on behalf of an entity owned by Claimant 2 and not on behalf of Claimant 2 as an individual.

Following the SEC’s 2022 denial, the Claimant filed a petition for review of their denial in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The SEC then sought a remand in the case and requested further information from the Claimant.

The Claimant provided “a new declaration from the entity’s general counsel that expressly states that the general counsel represented Claimant 2 in Claimant 2’s personal capacity throughout the process of providing information regarding the Company to the SEC.”

The SEC thus determined that Claimant 2 did qualify as a whistleblower and had “voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that significantly contributed to the success of the Covered Action.”

This marked the first time the SEC awarded a whistleblower who appealed an award denial before a federal appeals court.

5. $2.4 Million

On April 25, an individual Claimant was awarded $2.4 million after voluntarily providing original information to the Commission.

According to the SEC, “after internally reporting concerns, Claimant submitted a tip to the Commission that prompted the opening of the investigation and thereafter provided continuing assistance to the staff.”

Brooke Burkhart and Avery Hudson also contributed to this article.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2024. All Rights Reserved.
For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law Business Crimes section

Digging for Trouble: The Double-Edged Sword of Decisions to Report Misconduct

On May 10, 2024, Romy Andrianarisoa, former Chief of Staff to the President of Madagascar, was convicted for soliciting bribes from Gemfields Group Ltd (Gemfields), a UK-based mining company specializing in rubies and emeralds. Andrianarisoa, along with her associate Philippe Tabuteau, was charged after requesting significant sums of money and a five percent equity stake in a mining venture in exchange for facilitating exclusive mining rights in Madagascar.

The investigation, spearheaded by the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA), began when Gemfields reported their suspicions of corruption. Using covert surveillance, the NCA recorded Andrianarisoa and Tabuteau requesting 250,000 Swiss Francs (approximately £215,000) and a five percent equity stake, potentially worth around £4 million, as payments for their services. Gemfields supported the investigation and prosecution throughout.

During the investigation, six covertly recorded audio clips were released, suggesting Andrianarisoa had significant influence over Madagascar’s leadership and her expectation of substantial financial rewards. The arrests in August 2023 and subsequent trial at Southwark Crown Court culminated in prison sentences of three and a half years for Andrianarisoa and two years and three months for Tabuteau.

Comment

Gemfields has, quite rightly, been praised for reporting this conduct to the NCA and supporting their investigation and prosecution. In doing so, they made a strong ethical decision and went above and beyond their legal obligations: there is no legal requirement on Gemfields to report solicitations of this kind.

Such a decision will also have been difficult. Reporting misconduct and supporting the investigation is likely to have exposed Gemfields to significant risk and costs:

  • First, in order to meet their obligations as prosecutors, put together the best case, and comply with disclosure requirements, the NCA likely required Gemfields employees to attend interviews and provide documents. These activities require significant legal support and can be very costly both in time and money.
  • Secondly, such disclosures and interviews might identify unrelated matters of interest to the NCA. It is not uncommon in these cases for corporates reporting misconduct to become the subject of unrelated allegations of misconduct and separate investigations themselves.
  • Furthermore, to the extent that Gemfields supported the covert surveillance aspects of the NCA’s investigation, there may have been significant safety risks to both the employees participating, and unrelated employees in Madagascar. Such risks can be extremely difficult to mitigate.
  • Finally, the willingness to publicly and voluntarily report Andrianarisoa is likely to have created a chilling effect on Gemfields’ ability to do legitimate business in Madagascar and elsewhere. Potential partners may be dissuaded from working with Gemfields for fear of being dragged into similar investigations whether warranted or not.

Organisations in these situations face difficult decisions. Many will, quite rightly, want to be good corporate citizens, but in doing so, must recognise the potential costs and risks to their business and, ultimately, their obligations to shareholders and owners. In circumstances where there is no obligation to report, the safest option may be to walk away and carefully record the decision to do so. No doubt, Gemfields carefully considered these risks prior to reporting Andrianarisoa’s misconduct.

Businesses facing similar challenges should:

  • Ensure they understand their legal obligations. Generally, there is no obligation to report a crime. However, particularly for companies and firms operating in the financial services or other regulated sectors, this is not universally the case.
  • Carefully consider the risks and benefits associated with any decision to report another’s misconduct, including not only financial costs, but time and safety costs too.
  • Develop a compliance programme that assists and educates teams on how to correctly identify misconduct, escalate appropriately, and decide whether to report.
© 2024 Bracewell LLP
For more news on Reporting Global Misconduct, visit the NLR Criminal Law & Business Crimes section.

Supreme Court Decision Overturns Chevron: Impact on Cannabis Industry

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision and opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, significantly overruling the nearly 40-year-old precedent set by Chevron. The Chevron decision required federal courts to defer to a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute unless that interpretation was “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary” to the statute. This meant that if an agency such as the DEA published a bulletin or letter interpreting an ambiguous law, courts were generally bound to follow this interpretation due to the agency’s presumed expertise.

The Shift in Legal Interpretation

Loper Bright Enterprises has fundamentally changed this legal landscape. Now courts, rather than government agencies, are considered the best equipped to interpret ambiguous statutes. This shift means that a government agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute is now merely persuasive and not binding on the courts. This can be likened to a Pennsylvania court interpreting a Pennsylvania law and considering, but not being bound by, a Delaware state court’s interpretation of a similar corporate law. Just as Pennsylvania courts can choose to defer to, distinguish from, or disregard Delaware court decisions, federal courts now have the same discretion regarding agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Impact on the Cannabis Industry

This change has significant implications for the cannabis industry. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces federal drug laws and has issued numerous letters and bulletins determining the legality of various cannabis substances. For example, the DEA issued opinions that seemingly argued that Delta-8 THC products and THCA products were not allowed under the 2018 Farm Bill. I have generally disagreed with these interpretations, believing that the DEA incorrectly cited statutes related to hemp at harvest rather than downstream products.

With Loper Bright Enterprises, these DEA letters will lose their authoritative value. Courts are no longer bound to follow DEA interpretations and can more readily consider arguments opposing the DEA’s stance. This development is critical for the cannabis industry, as it opens the door for courts to reinterpret federal drug laws and potentially challenge the DEA’s restrictive interpretations of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Importance of This Shift

The overruling of Chevron by Loper Bright Enterprises marks a pivotal change in administrative law, particularly impacting the cannabis industry. This shift of interpretive authority from government agencies to the courts means there is now greater potential for legal challenges to restrictive interpretations of cannabis laws. This change enhances the ability of cannabis businesses and advocates to contest adverse decisions and interpretations by the DEA and other agencies, potentially leading to more favorable outcomes for the industry.

©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more on Cannabis, visit the NLR Biotech Food Drug section

Trademark Insights: What the First Precedential TTAB Expungement Decision Means for You

As a trademark applicant, encountering a prior registration that obstructs your path to registration is never a pleasant experience (nor for your attorneys who have to inform you about it). The frustration only intensifies when it becomes evident that the registered mark has never been used for the specified goods or services. Until 2021, the sole recourse with the USPTO to address this issue was filing a Petition to Cancel, with the hope that the registrant would not respond, leading to a swift default judgment. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and a response means expending an appreciable amount of time and money before resolution can be obtained, often through a settlement agreement.

In late 2021, the landscape changed with the passing of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020, which brought about two new ex parte proceedings: reexamination and expungement. The goal was to provide faster, more efficient, and less expensive alternatives to contested cancellation proceedings at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”).

Expungement proceedings, in particular, offer a means to cancel trademarks that have never been used in commerce. “Any party can request cancellation [by the USPTO Director] of some or all of the goods or services in a registration because the registrant never used the trademark in commerce with those goods or services.” This action is available against all types of registrations, but must be requested between three and ten years after the registration date.

Now, after two-and-a-half years of these proceedings, on July 1, 2024, the Board issued its first precedential decision in an expungement proceeding: In Re Locus Link USA.

In July 2022, a third party filed expungement actions against Locus Link USA’s (the “Registrant”) two SMARTLOCK registrations, alleging nonuse of the marks for the specified goods: “components for air conditioning and cooling systems, namely, evaporative air coolers.” The USPTO Director found sufficient evidence of nonuse and proposed cancellation. The registrant responded with evidence of use in the form of specimens showing connectors for metal tubing and air condition components, arguing that this evidence was sufficient, and had been previously accepted by the USPTO during examination. The USPTO maintained the cancellation, noting that the subject registrations only covered the specific goods following the term “namely” in the identification, here “evaporative air coolers.”

On appeal, the Registrant argued that the SMARTLOCK marks are in use in connection with the goods identified in the registration because the identification of goods covers components for evaporative air coolers. The Board disagreed and affirmed the USPTO’s decision.

Goods and services in an application should “state common names for goods or services, be as complete and specific as possible, and avoid indefinite words and phrases.” TMEP �� 1402.03(a), cited in In re Solid State Design Inc., Ser. No. 87269041, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *18 (TTAB 2018).

Applicants take notice: “the goods or services listed after the term ‘namely’ must further define the introductory wording that proceeds ‘namely’ using definite terms within the scope of the introductory words.” In other words, the goods or services that come after “namely” must specifically define the broader category mentioned before. Essentially, “namely” helps to clarify otherwise vague descriptions.

In this case, the broad category is “components for air conditioning and cooling systems.” The applications were only accepted for registration because they specified “namely, evaporative air coolers.” This means the SMARTLOCK marks cover evaporative air coolers that are components for air cooling systems. It does not cover component parts that go into making evaporative air coolers.

Key Takeaways

  1. Grammar Matters. Properly identifying goods and services in an application is vital. The USPTO continues to increase its specificity requirements for identifying goods and services, and applicants need to ensure not only original identifications, but also amendments to identifications proposed by an examiner accurately and correct reflect their goods and services. In Locus Link, was the Board, splitting hairs? Maybe, but the lesson is critically important for obtaining and maintaining trademark registrations.
  2. Specimen Acceptance Isn’t Conclusive. The acceptance of specimens by the USPTO does not control the ultimate question of use. Although not a new concept, one to keep in mind. It is more important to have multiple records of proper and consistent trademark use than to rely on a single specimen. It is wise to retain an attorney with experienced eyes to review your use specimens prior to filing for both registration and for maintenance of your registrations.
  3. File for New Marks as Necessary. While the SMARTLOCK marks were never in use for the goods, nonuse or lack of coverage can happen. Businesses expand and evolve over the years and so too should the portfolio of trademark registrations. It is important to occasionally audit your trademark portfolio to look for any gaps in coverage for certain marks and certain goods and services. Do not just think you have proper coverage, be sure so you are in the best offensive and defensive position possible for your brand. You never know who else is out there, looking to use your mark. If your registrations are in not order, your marks are vulnerable.

It is still early days for these new ex parte proceedings, but the hope is that they will prove a useful tool moving forward. This precedential decision although not groundbreaking does provide a good overview of the relatively new expungement proceeding and some good reminders for trademark owners.

Copyright © 2024 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Trademark Expungement, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

United States | H-1B, AOS, Schedule A and Other Regulatory Agenda Updates

According to the recent publication of the Spring 2024 regulatory agenda, the Biden administration has the H-1B modernization rule, adjustment of status proposal and seasonal/temporary worker regulations targeted for publication by the end of 2024. The next step toward Schedule A reform will occur this August.

  • H-1B modernization: The Department of Homeland Security proposed to amend regulations governing H-1B specialty occupations and certain F-1 students. DHS accepted comments on its wide-ranging proposed rule until Dec. 22, 2023 and finalized and implemented H-1B registration selection provisions in April 2024. The agency says it “continues to consider the suggestions made in public comments received as they relate to the other proposed provisions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2023 NPRM, and intends to finalize the remaining provisions in one or more actions.”
  • Lawful permanent residence (adjustment of status proposal): To reduce processing times, improve agency partnerships and promote efficiencies in visa availability, DHS plans to amend regulations governing adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence in the U.S. including permitting concurrent filing of a visa petition and the application for AOS for the employment-based fourth preference category. The target date for publishing the proposal is now August 2024. After publication, there will be a public comment period.
  • Schedule A: The Department of Labor is considering updating Schedule A and opened a Request for Information period on Dec. 21, 2023 that was extended through May 13, 2024. During this period, the public provided input on whether Schedule A served as an effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how DOL can create a timely, coherent, and transparent methodology for identifying science, technology, engineering and mathematics and other occupations that are experiencing labor shortages while ensuring the employment of foreign nationals does not displace U.S. workers or adversely affect their wages and working conditions. According to the regulatory agenda, DOL aims to complete analysis of the comments in August 2024.
  • H-2 modernization: DHS published a proposal for modernizing H-2 programs on Sept. 20, 2023 intended to reduce inefficiencies, enhance pay protections and address “aspects of the program that may unintentionally result in exploitation or other abuse of persons seeking to come to this country as H-2A and H-2B workers.” Comments were accepted through November 2023 and final action is targeted for November 2024.
  • Nonimmigrant workers: DHS plans to propose amendments to regulations governing certain nonimmigrant workers including updating the employment authorization rules regarding dependent spouses of certain nonimmigrants; increasing flexibilities for certain nonimmigrant workers and modernizing policies and procedures for employment authorization documents. The targeted publication date is now January 2025.
  • Immigrant worker reforms: DHS also plans to propose to amend regulations governing employment-based immigrant petitions in the first, second and third preference classifications. According to the regulatory agenda, proposed rule amendments would include updating and modernizing provisions governing extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers; clarifying evidentiary requirements for first preference classifications, second preference national interest waiver classifications and physicians of national and international renown; ensuring the integrity of the I-140 program and correcting errors and omissions. Publication of the proposed rule is now targeted for June 2025.

BAL Analysis: While these regulations would have a significant impact on immigration programs, they are at different stages in the rulemaking process, and policies are still being formulated. Proposed regulations are subject to a public notice-and-comment period, during which members of the public may submit feedback. BAL continues to monitor progress on the regulatory agenda and will provide clients with updates on individual regulations as they move through the rulemaking process.

©2024 Berry Appleman & Leiden. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Spring 2024 US Immigration Regulatory Updates, visit the NLR Immigration section.

What is Market Manipulation?

The financial market is supposed to be a place where investors put their hard-earned money to work. Market manipulation disrupts the playing field, undermining the integrity of financial systems and causing a great deal of harm to investors. Between 2020 and 2022, the United States recovered $2.7 billion from market manipulation incidents.

What Does Market Manipulation Mean?

The stock market thrives on constant movement as part of a healthy financial ecosystem. However, when someone artificially exploits the supply and demand for securities, the stock market sees a shift in the pricing and value of certain stocks. Market manipulation is an attempt to take advantage of those shifts with insider information, or create false ups and downs to turn a profit. A simple example might be spreading misinformation about a stock in order to cause its price to rise or fall.

How Market Manipulation Works

Market manipulation disrupts the natural flow of supply and demand in a security. For example, a person may attempt to manipulate the stock market in their favor by engaging in a series of transactions designed to make it look like there is a flurry of activity around their stock. This illusion prompts others to buy into such stock, convinced that the company is on the rise because of this artificial energy. This way, the person who began the market manipulation ends up in a better position.

Who Manipulates Stocks?

The stock market is manipulated by any number of bad actors. Investors, company leadership, and anyone who buys and sells securities may attempt to partake in market manipulation.

Why is Market Manipulation Illegal?

If the stock market naturally ebbs and flows, and people are always seeking to profit from it, why is market manipulation illegal?

The answer lies in the importance of honest trading practices and consumer trust. Market manipulation is a method of misleading investors, usually by spreading false information or artificially adjusting prices. Just as you should not sell someone a house by claiming that it has six stories when it is really a shack, similarly you should not manipulate security prices to scam investors.

Who Investigates Market Manipulation?

The US Department of Justice’s Market Integrity and Major Frauds Division (MIMF) investigates claims of securities fraud and market manipulation. The MIMF Division prosecutors can bring criminal charges as well as civil claims for damages against those accused of market manipulation. They utilize data analysis tools and traditional law enforcement techniques to identify and prosecute instances of securities fraud, manipulation, spoofing, insider trading, and more.

How Big Players Manipulate the Stock Market

While more smaller and highly liquid stocks or widely traded securities, are most susceptible to market manipulation, major players can influence the stock market in significant ways. Large financial institutions like Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have a massive hold on how the overall market moves. The 2008 financial crisis is a reminder of how securitization and risky trading of mortgage-backed securities played such a role and led to a ripple effect throughout the market.

Market Manipulation Examples

Stock market manipulation is only limited by the bounds of human ingenuity. Unfortunately, there are a number of ways scam artists attempt to manipulate the market. We have outlined common market manipulation schemes that have emerged over the years:

CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET MANIPULATION

Although cryptocurrency is less regulated than other investments, it can still be subject to market manipulation. The legal classification of crypto assets as securities is still debatable. However, an August 2023 ruling in Manhattan federal court stated that all cryptocurrencies should be considered securities, regardless of the context in which they are sold. The SEC guidelines on the subject, meanwhile, have hinged on whether or not the particular blockchain is sufficiently decentralized.

The ICO, or Initial Coin Offering, is usually the area where cryptocurrency market manipulation occurs. Crypto is particularly vulnerable to the spread of misinformation on social media, the use of celebrities to artificially inflate an ICO’s value, and pump-and-dump schemes.

HEDGE FUNDS MARKET MANIPULATION

The 2021 GameStop scenario highlighted the upper hand hedge funds often have in the market. In this case, a group of individuals met online and attempted to manipulate the market. Retail investors on Reddit collectively purchased the stock in large quantities after being concerned about the alleged short selling by hedge funds that could devalue GameStop. This surge in buying pressure forced hedge funds to buy back their shares for more money to cover their short sales. However, in the long run, many hedge fund managers profited from the massively increased prices.

FUTURES MARKET MANIPULATION

Attempting to create monopoly power, or “cornering the market” is the primary method of futures market manipulation. This strategy involves a major player artificially creating scarcity in the market by buying up available assets, along with a large stake in a futures contract for delivery at a later date. This is followed by the player refusing to sell at anything except their own price, creating a squeeze on investors who need to buy contracts to fulfill their delivery obligations. Because the futures market hinges upon upcoming deliverables, it forces short sellers to buy contracts at inflated prices from the dominant player.

CROSS-MARKET MANIPULATION

Cross-market manipulation has become more prevalent in recent years, as technology allows trades to happen in real-time and with a higher frequency. Cross-market manipulation is the effort to trade in one venue with the goal of affecting the price of the same security or financial instrument in another market. Cross-market manipulation is also known as inter-trading venue manipulation.

CHURNING MARKET MANIPULATION

Churning is an illegal practice designed to create the illusion of activity and generate commission fees. It involves an excessive amount of trading in a brokerage account solely to generate commissions for the broker from each sale, and not for the client’s benefit.

WHAT IS SPOOFING MARKET MANIPULATION?

Order spoofing, or spoofing, is a method of market manipulation designed to generate interest in a security. One or more players place multiple buy or sell orders on a stock to adjust its price, only to cancel them once other traders accordingly adjust their activities. Thus, the bids are “spoofs,” and therefore, never meant to be followed through.

WHAT IS COORDINATED PRICE MANIPULATION IN THE STOCK MARKET?

Coordinated price manipulation involves agreements between competitors to artificially inflate or deflate stock market prices. For instance, short selling, while legal on its own as a strategy, can cross the line into market manipulation by generating fear around securities to unnaturally lower its price.

WHAT IS LAYERING MARKET MANIPULATION?

Layering is a form of spoofing that involves placing a series of orders designed to be eventually canceled. However, in layering market manipulation efforts, the bids are all placed at different price points, setting the market price somewhere in the middle of the fake trades. This way, the manipulator achieves a better understanding of the market price based on their fake activity, and can trade on the other side of the market to turn in a profit while canceling extraneous offers.

FRONT-RUNNING MARKET MANIPULATION

Front running is often done by an individual broker who has insider information about a future development that will impact stock price. For example, a broker who is ordered to sell a large amount of stock instead goes to their own account before executing the trade and dumps their stock in the same company, now knowing the market price is predicted to plummet. Here, the broker has “run out in front” of natural market fluctuations to illegally sell their stock.

SHORT SELLING MARKET MANIPULATION

Short selling can become market manipulation in the event of cross-market manipulation or coordinated price manipulation.

Naked short selling is the illegal practice of selling shares in an asset before acquiring them, or ensuring that they can in fact be purchased or acquired. The goal here is the same as in usual shorting; however, in short selling, shares must be borrowed before they can be offered to other investors.

PUMP-AND-DUMP SCHEMES

Pump-and-dump schemes typically involve spreading misinformation about a stock in order to “pump up” a frenzy of orders and investments. The perpetrators then “dump” their stocks at the new and artificially inflated price point. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warns that microcap securities are particularly vulnerable to pump-and-dump schemes because of limited publicly available information.

How Do You Tell if a Stock is Being Manipulated?

Opportunities for market manipulation have become more widespread with mobile trading apps, AI algorithms and bot activity enabling trading to happen in the blink of an eye from anywhere. Traders must examine stock market activity more thoroughly, keeping an eye out for possible warning signs of market manipulation:

  • Unlikely performance compared to company indexes: The stock market cannot tell the full picture of a company’s well-being. It is better to compare market prices against other metrics like revenue, growth potential, and capitalization. When a company’s stock prices remain low even as other signs point to growth, it may be a sign that artificial market activity is at play.
  • Fake news on social media: The spread of bot-led accounts designed to appear like genuine human activity on social media points toward the potential for misinformation. False information often plays a key role in market manipulation and price-adjusting efforts.
  • Flurries of activity: Churning, spoofing, and layering all involve sudden onsets of orders not related to genuine developments. A sudden rush can indicate that a stock is being manipulated. Likewise, a large volume of activity without matching price action can be a warning sign of wash trading.

How Do You Stop Market Manipulation?

Here are some tips to protect yourself from stock market manipulators:

  • Understand your risk appetite and ensure you have an exit strategy for your investments
  • Verify claims that seem too good to be true
  • Avoid excessively large bids or “limited time offers”
  • Review your account activity on a regular basis and report any suspicious activity in your account

SEC MARKET MANIPULATION

The SEC runs the Office of the Whistleblower, which allows whistleblowers to come forward to anonymously report market manipulation. The SEC Office of the Whistleblower has awarded over $1 billion to whistleblowers who have shared information leading to a recovery after a stock market manipulation scheme.

CFTC MARKET MANIPULATION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) relies heavily on tips and whistleblower information to ensure fair trading practices in the commodity and futures markets. The CFTC Whistleblower Program offers rewards for information as well as protection against retaliation.

How Do You Prove Market Manipulation?

A whistleblower attorney can be your strongest ally to help you gather proof of market manipulation, including:

  • Proof of intent to defraud: Emails, text messages, social media posts, and sworn testimonies to private conversations
  • Refutation of legitimate business purposes: Internal memos, monthly reports, notes from meetings, staff emails, etc. to show that the suspicious activity was not in pursuit of legitimate business purposes
  • Records of trades, monthly account statements, canceled checks, wire transfers, stock transfers, and more: All of these documents can help present a bigger financial picture to illustrate the motive to manipulate market prices

What Are the Consequences of Market Manipulation?

Market manipulation undermines fair and stable markets, and erodes investors’ trust in financial systems. When investors fear manipulation, they may become less confident and willing to invest in diverse portfolios. Market manipulation also creates an uneven playing field, hurting fair competition when scam artists profit at the expense of investors who may lose savings and watch their assets dissolve.

Rewards for Reporting Market Manipulation

You may qualify as a protected whistleblower under the following statutes:

How Are Whistleblowers Protected After Reporting Market Manipulation?

Whistleblowers can anonymously report suspected market manipulation through the SEC Whistleblower Program and have their identity redacted even from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Whistleblowers who have been retaliated against by their employers can sue for the following actions:

  • Reinstatement to former seniority level
  • Payment of double back pay, with interest
  • Payment of front pay, in cases where reinstatement is not possible
  • Attorney fees and legal costs
  • Additional damages

Biggest Market Manipulation Cases

New market manipulation cases are constantly coming to light, as whistleblowers step forward to reveal wrongdoings in the stock market. Some of the biggest market manipulation settlements include:

  • $1.186 billion against Glencore International AG: The CFTC ordered Glencore to pay $1.186 billion to settle accusations that the energy and commodities trading firm strategically manipulated at least four US-based S&P Global Platts physical oil benchmarks from 2007 to 2018.
  • $920 million from JP Morgan for spoofing: The 2020 settlement ordered JP Morgan Chase to pay $920.2 million to settle allegations of at least eight years of spoofing in precious metals and US Treasury futures contracts.
  • $249 million from Morgan Stanley and former executive Pawan Passi: In 2024, the SEC charged Morgan Stanley and its former executive Pawan Passi for executing block trades and acting on insider information. The firm agreed to pay $249 million to settle allegations of multi-year wrongdoing.

What is the SEC Doing about Market Manipulation?

The SEC relies on tips from whistleblowers to take out insider trading rings, spoofing attempts, pump-and-dump schemes, and other kinds of market manipulation attempts. If you have information about such tactics, you may be able to take part in the SEC Whistleblower Program. A whistleblower lawyer with Tycko & Zavareei LLP can help make sure your claim is as strong as possible before you bring it to the SEC. Remember, information once reported is no longer eligible for a reward.

Market Manipulation: FAQs

IS MARKET MANIPULATION ILLEGAL?

Yes. While everyone wants to “get ahead” on the stock market, manipulating the market is an illegal activity that can result in criminal penalties like jail time, as well as the imposition of civil fines and damages.

WHAT IS A REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE OF MARKET MANIPULATION?

One of the most notorious examples of market manipulation is the 2001 Enron scandal. When the energy company was found to have altered and misrepresented financial statements to inflate its stock price, it went bankrupt and multiple executives were indicted for the fraud.

WHO DOES MARKET MANIPULATION HURT?

Market manipulation hurts investors who lose money on investments that are either illegitimate or inaccurately represented. At the same time, its negative impact may also be felt throughout the economy, the 2008-2009 Great Recession being a case in point.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET ABUSE AND MARKET MANIPULATION?

Market manipulation is a specific tactic within the larger issue of market abuse. Market manipulation focuses on artificially controlling prices to secure unearned profit, whereas market abuse encompasses various schemes with the aim of disadvantaging investors for personal gain.

© 2024 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more news on Market Manipulation, visit the NLR Criminal Law & Business Crimes section.

The End of Chevron Deference and the Anticipated Impact on Withdrawal Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute. (See “Go Fish! U.S. Supreme Court Overturns ‘Chevron Deference’ to Federal Agencies: What It Means for Employers”) Following the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts must exercise independent judgment in reviewing the agency’s interpretation of the statute. Courts may apply the standard set forth in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944), in which a court can uphold a regulation if it finds the agency’s interpretation of the statute persuasive.

The Loper Bright decision could prove to have an immediate impact on the actions of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The PBGC is a federal agency with regulatory authority over the withdrawal liability provisions in Title IV of ERISA. Two recent actions taken by the PBGC that are under current scrutiny figure to be challenged under Loper Bright: the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) plan asset phase-in and withdrawal liability interest rate assumption regulations.

Conditions for MEPPs Receiving Special Financial Assistance (SFA)

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) provided for SFA for troubled multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs). The SFA program will provide between $74 and $91 billion in assistance to eligible MEPPs. Pursuant to ARPA, Congress delegated authority to the PBGC to issue “reasonable conditions” for SFA applications and for withdrawal liability calculated by SFA recipients. On July 8, 2022, the PBGC published a final rule detailing the eligibility criteria, application process, and restrictions and conditions associated with a MEPPs’ use of SFA funds.

As previously discussed in “More Bad News for Employers in the PBGC Final Rule,” the final rule expresses PBGC’s opinion that “payment of an SFA was not intended to reduce withdrawal liability or to make it easier for employers to withdraw.” Consistent with these concerns, the PBGC’s final rule mandated that recipient MEPPs “phase-in” the SFA as a plan asset over a 10-year period. This interpretation will significantly (and arguably artificially) increase the amount of many employers’ withdrawal liability. It is anticipated that the final rule will be challenged in the near future.

Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Assumption

The interest rate assumptions used by an MEPP to calculate withdrawal liability can have a massive impact on the amount of an employer’s liability. In 1980, when amending Title IV of ERISA by enacting the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), Congress delegated authority to the PBGC to issue regulations relating to these critical interest rates assumptions. To date, PBGC has not done so.

Specifically, in response to several recent court rulings (See “Withdrawal Liability Interest Rate Must Reflect Projected Investment Return, D.C. Circuit Holds”), the PBGC issued a proposed regulation to allegedly “make clear that use of 4044 rates [the settlement interest rate], either as a standalone assumption or combined with funding interest assumptions represents a valid approach to selecting an interest rate assumption to determine withdrawal liability in all circumstances.” Even more problematic, the proposed rule states that a “plan’s actuary would be permitted to determine withdrawal liability under the proposed rule without regard to section 4213(a)(1) [including foregoing the reasonableness and actuarial best estimate requirements].” The proposed rule directly contradicts recent judicial interpretations of the referenced statute that was enacted as part of MPPAA over 44 years ago.

Further, the PBGC’s proposed rule ignored the critical issue of whether the selection of an interest rate that ignores the statutory reasonableness and best estimate requirements satisfies other provisions of ERISA, such as Section 4221(a)(3)(B)(i). In this regard, and consistent with Loper Bright, several Circuit Courts of Appeal have already exercised their independent judgment to interpret the statutory “best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan” language as referring to the “unique characteristics of the plan” such as the plan’s investment asset mix and the expected rate of return on such assets. These recent Circuit Court decisions therefore directly contradict the PBGC’s proposed regulations. Any final regulation promulgated by PBGC that follows the proposed regulations would inevitably be challenged and resolved under the less-deferential standard established under Loper Bright.

Final Thoughts

The exact impact of Loper Bright on agency actions in general and the PBGC actions discussed above remains to be seen. Since Skidmore is still good law, a court that is sympathetic to an agency’s position could still opt to defer to that interpretation. Courts will no doubt be busy with a plethora of suits challenging administrative actions. The two current hot-button topics discussed above seem destined to be challenged and resolved by judges in a post-Chevron world. The resolution of these issues will have massive implications for employers with significant potential withdrawal liability exposure.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2024
For more news on the impact of Loper Bright on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), visit the NLR Labor Employment section.

Federal Agencies Have Placed a Heightened Priority on Whistleblowers and Speedy Cooperation

As new areas of the law emerge, driven in part by technology and the free flow of information, federal agencies are becoming more aggressive with a tried and true carrot-and-stick approach to law and regulatory enforcement.

In a recent PLI panel on government enforcement priorities in May 2024, Brent Wible, Chief Counselor, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice (DOJ or Department); Daniel Gitner, Chief of the Criminal Division, US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY or the Office); and Antonia Apps, Director of the New York Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) shared their thoughts, priorities and practices in 2024 enforcement and beyond.

All of the government lawyers stressed that the DOJ and enforcement agencies are open and are actively encouraging whistleblowers with new incentives and programs. To that end, Mr. Gitner from the SDNY stated very directly that corporations need to understand that there is a “need for speed” in corporate self-disclosures. Otherwise, whistleblowers will be closing the door to the benefits of corporate self-disclosures. Put differently, enforcement agencies do not want a corporation to complete lengthy internal investigations before reporting.

A uniform theme and stance taken by all is that whistleblowers are valuable, and bounties will be paid in cash or in deferred prosecution agreements or possibly both. Whistleblowers must be protected. Internal and external whistleblowers should be encouraged.
This article focuses on three whistleblower initiatives—(i) the SEC’s Whistleblower Program, (ii) the SDNY Whistleblower Pilot Program and (iii) DOJ’s Pilot Whistleblower Program for voluntary self-disclosure—and how those programs may impact a corporation’s response to whistleblowers, internal investigations, and disclosures.

SEC 21F WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

Since its inception more than a decade ago, the SEC’s Whistleblower Program is widely viewed as successfully incentivizing whistleblower reports of violations of the securities laws. In its 2023 fiscal year, the SEC received more than 18,000 tips from whistleblowers and issued the most awards to whistleblowers ever in one year, totaling nearly US$600 million. That year, the Commission also issued its largest ever award of US$279 million to a single whistleblower.1

What is the SEC’s Whistleblower Program?

Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, codified as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, requires the SEC to pay awards to whistleblowers who provide information to the SEC about violations of federal securities laws.2 Accordingly, the SEC has issued a series of rulemakings implementing Section 21F to create its whistleblower program. To qualify as a whistleblower, an individual must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information in writing about a possible violation of federal securities law that has occurred, is ongoing, or is about to occur.3 To qualify for an award, this information must lead to a successful enforcement action with monetary sanctions totaling more than US$1 million.4

“Original” information means that it cannot be found in publicly available sources and is not already known by the Commission, but is instead the product of the whistleblower’s independent knowledge or analysis.5 A submission is “voluntary” if the whistleblower provides it to the SEC before receiving a regulatory request or demand for information relating to the same subject matter. Therefore, a submission of information that is made in response to a request, inquiry, or demand by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a self-regulatory organization (such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), or a separate federal or state governmental body does not qualify as a voluntary submission.6 Additionally, a submission that is required under a legal or contractual duty to the Commission is not considered voluntary and is thus ineligible for an award.7

The SEC’s whistleblower rules also include anti-retaliation protections intended to ensure that the incentives provided to whistleblowers for reporting are not outweighed by a fear of reprisal from their employer. Under Rule 21F-17, companies are prohibited from interfering with or impeding a whistleblower’s communications to the SEC about a possible violation of the securities laws, including through enforcement or threatened enforcement of a confidentiality agreement that may be read to prevent whistleblower communications with the SEC.8

The SEC is taking violations of Rule 21F-17 seriously and has increased enforcement activity in this area over the last two years. The Commission brought a number of actions, with significant civil penalties, focused on corporate agreements containing confidentiality language that, according to the SEC, does not provide an express exception for whistleblower communications. The enforcement actions extend to different types of companies, including publicly traded companies, privately held companies, broker-dealers and investment advisers, and to a variety of forms of agreements with employees and customers alike.9

For example, a gaming company paid US$35 million to settle claims that it had violated the whistleblower protection rule by requiring former employees to execute separation agreements that obligated them to notify the company of any request for information received from the Commission, in addition to compliance failures regarding workplace complaints.10 In January 2024, the SEC settled the largest ever standalone Rule 21F-17 case, imposing US$18 million in civil penalties against a dually registered investment adviser and broker dealer for allegedly requiring clients to sign a confidential release agreement—without expressly allowing for direct communications to regulators regarding potential securities law violations—in order to receive certain credit or settlement payments.11 In another case involving US$10 million in civil penalties, the Commission charged a registered investment adviser with a standalone violation of Rule 21F-17 based on employment agreements that contained a confidentiality clause prohibiting external disclosure of confidential company information, without a carve-out for voluntary communications with the SEC concerning possible violations of the securities laws.12 As recently stated by the co-chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Asset Management Unit, “Investors, whether retail or otherwise, must be free to report complaints to the SEC without any interference. Those drafting or using confidentiality agreements need to ensure that they do not include provisions that impede potential whistleblowers.”13

SDNY WHISTLEBLOWER PILOT PROGRAM

In February 2024, the SDNY launched a whistleblower pilot program. The purpose of the program is to encourage early and voluntary self-disclosure of criminal conduct by individual participants.14 The program is applicable to disclosures of conduct committed by public or private companies, exchanges, financial institutions, investment advisers, or investment funds involving fraud or corporate control failure or affecting market integrity, or criminal conduct involving state or local bribery or fraud relating to federal, state, or local funds.15 In exchange for a qualifying self-disclosure, the Office will enter into a non-prosecution agreement with the whistleblower.16

Given that a non-prosecution agreement is promised, the SDNY has identified factors to determine whether a whistleblower qualifies for a discretionary non prosecution agreement. The most salient include: whether and to what extent the misconduct is unknown to either SDNY or the DOJ; whether the information is disclosed voluntarily to SDNY and not in response to an inquiry or obligation to report misconduct; whether the whistleblower provides substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of culpable individuals, and in the investigation and prosecution of the disclosed conduct; whether the whistleblower truthfully and completely discloses all criminal conduct they participated in and are aware of; whether the whistleblower is a chief executive officer or chief financial officer of a public or private company, who is not eligible for the pilot program; and the adequacy of noncriminal sanctions, such as remedies imposed by civil regulators.

Mr. Gitner said the defense bar is coming around to a non-prosecution carrot for individuals involved in wrongdoing within the corporation. Mr. Gitner said that SDNY seeks early discussions, and the pilot program seems to be driving toward that goal.

DOJ PILOT PROGRAM ON VOLUNTARY SELF-DISCLOSURES FOR INDIVIDUALS

In March 2024, the DOJ announced an upcoming program to reward whistleblowers who report corporate crimes. The new program seeks to bolster existing whistleblower programs established by the SEC (discussed above), the Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC), the Internal Revenue Service, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.17 Accordingly, the program will offer rewards to whistleblowers who provide information on misconduct that is not under the jurisdiction of those agencies. In particular, the Department is interested in criminal abuses of the US financial system, foreign corruption cases outside of the SEC’s jurisdiction, and domestic corruption cases. In order to qualify, an individual must provide original, nonpublic, and truthful information that assists the Department in uncovering “significant corporate or financial misconduct” and is previously unknown to the agency.18 Like the SEC and CFTC, the Department does not plan to provide awards for information that is submitted under a preexisting duty or in response to an inquiry.19 Access to the program is only available where existing programs or qui tam actions do not exist. Additionally, the whistleblower in this program cannot be involved in the criminal activity itself. After compensation to victims, the whistleblower will receive a portion of the resulting forfeiture as a reward.20

Interestingly, however, it appears the Department may be moving away from offering monetary awards to whistleblowers. In April 2024, the Department introduced a pilot program that tracks with the SDNY and offers mandatory non prosecution agreements to individuals who provide information on corporate misconduct.21 Under the program, an individual must voluntarily self-disclose original information to the Criminal Division about criminal misconduct that is not previously known to the Department. The information must be “truthful and complete,” meaning it must include all known information relating to the misconduct, including the individual’s own culpability. In particular, the Department seeks information on violations by financial institutions; violations related to market integrity committed by financial institutions, investment advisers, investment funds, or public or private companies; foreign corruption and bribery violations by public or private companies; violations relating to health care fraud or illegal health care kickbacks; fraud or deception against the United States in connection with federally funded contracting; and bribery or kickbacks to domestic public officials by public or private companies. The whistleblower also cannot be a chief executive officer, chief financial officer, or those equivalents of a public or private company; or an elected or appointed foreign government or domestic government official; nor can the whistleblower have a previous felony conviction or a conviction of any kind involving fraud or dishonesty. Irrespective of this program, the Department still has the discretion of offering a non-prosecutorial agreement to individuals who may not meet the above criteria in full, subject to Justice Manual and Criminal Division procedures.22

TAKEAWAYS

The takeaways here for corporate in-house legal departments are:

  • Federal agencies are incentivizing whistleblowers with cash and non-prosecution agreements. It is clear that wrongdoers and witnesses now more than ever have several whistleblower programs from which to choose. As a result, corporations must become more vigilant at detecting wrongdoing and effectively utilizing internal reporting systems. Careful consideration of an early self-disclosure to the appropriate agency may also be warranted. Internal investigations will take a heightened priority to aid the c-suite and board on disclosure decisions.
  • Not only is protecting whistleblowers a priority but encouraging whistleblowers through heightened compliance programs, updated hotlines or other internal reporting programs should be considered. You may also wish to consider offering financial incentives for timely reporting to the corporation’s internal reporting program. All of which will benefit the company in any government disclosure.
  • The enforcement risk for companies under the SEC’s whistleblower rules is real and potentially significant, including with respect to day-to-day business activities (such as entering into client or employee confidentiality agreements) that may not otherwise be recognized as creating regulatory exposure. Companies may wish to revisit their standard contracts and compliance materials to ensure that any confidentiality provisions align with Rule 21F-17.

We acknowledge the contributions to this publication from our summer associate Minu Nagashunmugam.

1 https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/enforcement-results-fy23.

2 https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 2.

3 https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 2.

4 https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 3.

5https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 5.

6 https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 5.

7 https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 5.

8 https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf, p. 28.

9 The SEC’s Office of the Whistleblower has stated that violations of Rule 21F-17 may be triggered by “internal policies, procedures, and guidance, such as codes of conduct, compliance manuals, training materials, and other such documents.” SEC, Whistleblower Protections (last updated July 1, 2024) https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program/whistleblower-protections#anti-retaliation.

10 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/sec-biggest-whistleblower-penalty-signals-broad-protection-focus?context=search&index=11

11 In re JP Morgan Sec. LLC, File No. 3-21829 (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2024/34-99344.pdf.

12 In re D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P., File No. 3-21775 (Sept. 29, 2023), https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2013/34-70396.pdf.

13 SEC Press Release (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-7.

14 https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/sdny_wb_policy_effective_2-13-24.pdf

15 https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/sdny_wb_policy_effective_2-13-24.pdf

16 https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-05/sdny_wb_policy_effective_2-13-24.pdf

17 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/acting-assistant-attorney-general-nicole-m-argentieri-delivers-keynote-speech-american

18 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-monaco-delivers-keynote-remarks-american-bar-associations

19 https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1347991/dl?inline

20https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-monaco-delivers-keynote-remarks-american-bar-associations

21https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1347991/dl?inline

22 https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1347991/dl?inline

Listen to this post

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
For more on Whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law Business Crimes section

Petition for Certiorari Filed in Supreme Court in False Claims Act Case Seeking Review of Whether “Willful” Under the Anti-Kickback Statute Requires Knowledge that the Conduct is Unlawful

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to define “willfulness” under the federal criminal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). In a declined qui tam case filed against McKesson Corporation, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, the relator, Adam Hart, a former McKesson employee, filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of a Second Circuit decision that upheld the dismissal of relator’s complaint asserting claims under the civil False Claims Act (FCA) premised on alleged violations of the AKS. U.S. ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corp., 96 F.4th 145 (2d Cir. 2024). A violation of the AKS requires as the scienter element that the defendant “knowingly and willfully” offered or paid remuneration to induce the recipient of the renumeration to purchase goods or items for which payment may be made under a federal health care program. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2). The Second Circuit held that a defendant does not act “willfully” within the meaning of the AKS unless that defendant “act[s] knowing that his conduct is unlawful.” United States ex rel. Hart, 96 F.4th at 154.

The AKS is enforced both as a criminal statute and, as in this case, is frequently used by the government or relators as a predicate violation to support an alleged violation of the civil FCA. Since 2010, Congress has specified that a claim that includes items or services “resulting from” an AKS violation is a false or fraudulent claim under the FCA. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). Though the evidentiary standard in criminal and civil cases differs, the government or relator in civil cases must adequately plead the “knowingly and willfully” scienter element of the AKS.

Hart alleged in his Second Amended Complaint that McKesson offered physician oncology practices two valuable business tools, the Margin Analyzer and the Regimen Profiler, to induce those practices to purchase oncology pharmaceuticals from McKesson. Hart alleged that these business tools were prohibited remuneration, and that McKesson acted “knowingly and willfully” in offering these two tools to its customers in violation of the AKS. Hart’s basis for alleging “willfulness” included: (1) alleged document destruction during the litigation; (2) Hart informed his supervisor during compliance training about the potential AKS violation, yet McKesson continued to provide these tools, worth about $150,000, to medical practices free of charge in exchange for commitments to purchase drugs from McKesson; and (3) Hart’s discussions with other employees that McKesson was inappropriately exploiting the business tools.

After the government declined to intervene, the District Court dismissed the FCA claims in a Second Amended Complaint (after dismissing the prior complaint as well) by ruling that Hart failed to plausibly allege sufficient facts to suggest McKesson acted “willfully”. The Second Circuit upheld the dismissal and agreed that a defendant acts “willfully” under the AKS only if the defendant knows “that its conduct is, in some way, unlawful.”

The Second Circuit rejected the relator’s proposed approach, a looser standard that would meet the “willfully” standard of the scienter element if (a) the company provided something of value in connection with the sale of pharmaceuticals reimbursed by the government, and (b) knew, even through general compliance training, that it is illegal to provide things of value to induce sales. Hart filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, presenting the question: “[t]o act ‘willfully’ within the meaning of the [AKS], must a defendant know that its conduct violates the law?”

There is no dispute, under the law, that a defendant does not need “specific intent” to violate the AKS. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(h). However, the petition raises questions about how certain sister Circuits interpret “willfully” when addressing violations of the AKS:

  • The Second Circuit held in this case that a defendant does not act “willfully” within the meaning of the AKS unless that defendant “act[s] knowing that his conduct is unlawful, even if the defendant is not aware that his conduct is unlawful under the AKS specifically.” United States ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corp., 96 F.4th 145,154 (2d Cir. 2024).
  • The Eleventh Circuit, in accord with the Second, has also held that a defendant must know that its conduct is unlawful in order to violate the AKS. United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1293 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[T]o find that a person acted willfully in violation of § 1320a-7b, the person must have acted voluntarily and purposely, with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, that is with a bad purpose, either to disobey or disregard the law.”) (internal quotations omitted)).
  • The relator argues in the petition that the Fifth and Eighth Circuits are split with the Second Circuit. Relator relies on a Fifth Circuit case holding that “willfully” requires that a “defendant willfully committed an act that violated the . . . Statute” without a requirement that a defendant know its conduct is unlawful. United States v. St. Junius, 739 F.3d 193, 210 & n.19 (5th Cir. 2013). However, a more recent Fifth Circuit case, which was cited by the Second Circuit, defines “willfully” to mean “the act was committed voluntarily or purposely, with the specific intent to do something the law forbids; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.” United States v. Nora, 988 F.3d 823, 830 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
  • The relator cites an Eighth Circuit case holding a defendant’s conduct is willful if a defendant “knew that his conduct was wrongful,” but asserts the Eighth Circuit has not “require[d] proof that [the defendant] . . . knew it violated ‘a known legal duty.’” United States v. Jain, 93 F.3d 436, 441 (8th Cir. 1996). However, a more recent Eighth Circuit relied on Jain to uphold a jury instruction stating, “[a] defendant acts willfully if he knew his conduct was wrongful or unlawful.” United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 708 (8th Cir. 2011).
  • The Second Circuit did recognize a circuit split, but described its view as in “align[ment] with the approach to the AKS taken by several of our sister courts [including the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits], which have held or implied that to be liable under the AKS, defendants must know that their particular conduct was wrongful.” United States ex rel. Hart, 96 F.4th at 154-55.

It is important to remember that the AKS is a felony statute subject to criminal fines and up to 10 years of imprisonment. It also criminalizes conduct that, in other industries, is not illegal. Further, due to the breadth of the statute and its complexity, Congress and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) have developed a complicated set of guidance to help attorneys and compliance professionals understand and provide counsel with respect to AKS compliance, including statutory exceptions, regulatory safe harbors, advisory opinions, and an enormous body of sub-regulatory guidance. The Second Circuit understood this and noted that its “interpretation of the AKS’s willfulness requirement thus protects those (and only those) who innocently and inadvertently engage in prohibited conduct.” Id. at 155-56.

If the Supreme Court takes an interest in this case, it likely will invite the view of the Solicitor General. Any Supreme Court interest in granting this petition will likely attract a wide range of amici participation at the certiorari stage by health care industry groups and associations, pharmaceutical company associations, other business groups, as well as associations of whistleblower counsel and other supporters of the private action qui tam provisions of the FCA. Though the range of holdings by the Courts of Appeal are often nuanced, Supreme Court consideration of the issue would be viewed as very significant, and a decision that creates a rigorous standard for “willfulness,” or alternatively, a lenient one, could considerably impact the Department of Justice (DOJ) and relators’ ability to successfully plead, and prove, an AKS violation as a predicate to an alleged FCA violation.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Criminal Anti-Kickback Statutes, visit the NLR Criminal Law & Business Crimes section.

FinCEN Publishes Updated FAQs

Entities terminated in 2024 are required to file Corporate Transparency Act beneficial ownership information reports, as are administratively dissolved entities.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) recently published updates to its list of Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”) to assist entities in complying with the beneficial ownership reporting requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”).

Principal among these updates was FinCEN’s clarifying requirement that business entities terminated in the year 2024 (whether existing prior to 2024 or formed in 2024) are required to file beneficial ownership information reports (BOIR) under the CTA.

This filing requirement also expressly includes BOIR filings for administratively dissolved entities.

Each of these concepts were the subject of debate as to their applicability under the CTA prior to this FAQ release, with some conjecture that terminating an entity’s existence prior to its BOIR filing deadline would alleviate the need to make a BOIR filing – a position now refuted by FinCEN.

As Polsinelli has consistently advised, the obligation to file under the CTA has accrued for all entities in existence in 2024, only the deadline for filing the BOIR has not yet arrived. Entities are advised to file their BOIR prior to consummating their termination process.

The July 8 FAQs also included clarification on beneficial owner disclosure scenarios involving an entity fully or partially owned by an Indian Tribe.

FinCEN expects to publish further guidance in the future. The updated FAQs can be accessed here.

* * * * *

Several of the updates bear special note:

1. FAQ C. 12. – Reporting Company Status

Do beneficial ownership information reporting requirements apply to companies created or registered before the Corporate Transparency Act was enacted (January 1, 2021)?

FinCEN stated “Yes.” Beneficial ownership information reporting requirements apply to all companies that qualify as “reporting companies”, regardless of when they were created or registered. Companies are not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN if they are exempt or ceased to exist (i.e., are formally terminated with the Secretary of State) as legal entities before January 1, 2024.

2. FAQ C. 13. – Reporting Company Status

Is a company required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN if the company ceased to exist before reporting requirements went into effect on January 1, 2024?

A company is not required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN if it ceased to exist as a legal entity (i.e., was formally terminated with the Secretary of State) before January 1, 2024. This means that the entity entirely completed the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving (i.e., was formally terminated with the Secretary of State). A company that ceased to exist as a legal entity before the beneficial ownership information reporting requirements became effective January 1, 2024, was never subject to the reporting requirements and thus is not required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.

Although state or Tribal law may vary, a company typically completes the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving by, for example, filing dissolution paperwork with its jurisdiction of creation or registration, receiving written confirmation of dissolution, paying related taxes or fees, ceasing to conduct any business, and winding up its affairs (e.g., fully liquidating itself and closing all bank accounts).

If a reporting company continued to exist as a legal entity for any period of time on or after January 1, 2024 (i.e., did not entirely complete the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving (i.e., terminating) before January 1, 2024), then it is required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, even if the company had wound up its affairs and ceased conducting business before January 1, 2024.

Similarly, if a reporting company was created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, and subsequently ceased to exist, then it is required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN—even if it ceased to exist before its initial beneficial ownership information report was due.

A company that is administratively dissolved or suspended—because, for example, it failed to pay a filing fee or comply with certain jurisdictional requirements—generally does not cease to exist as a legal entity unless the dissolution or suspension becomes permanent. Until the dissolution becomes permanent, such a company is required to report its beneficial ownership information to FinCEN.

3. FAQ C. 14. – Reporting Company Status

If a reporting company created or registered in 2024 or later winds up its affairs and ceases to exist before its initial BOI report is due to FinCEN, is the company still required to submit that initial report?

FinCEN stated “Yes.” Reporting companies created or registered in 2024 must report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN within 90 days of receiving actual or public notice of creation or registration. Reporting companies created or registered in 2025 or later must report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN within 30 days of receiving actual or public notice of creation or registration. These obligations remain applicable to reporting companies that cease to exist as legal entities—meaning wound up their affairs, ceased conducting business, and entirely completed the process of formally and irrevocably dissolving—before their initial beneficial ownership reports are due.

It bears note that, if a reporting company files an initial beneficial ownership information report and then ceases to exist, then there is no requirement for the reporting company to file an additional report with FinCEN noting that the company has ceased to exist.

4. FAQ D. 17. – Beneficial Owner

Who should an entity fully or partially owned by an Indian Tribe report as its beneficial owner(s)?

An Indian Tribe is not an individual, and thus should not be reported as an entity’s beneficial owner, even if it exercises substantial control over an entity or owns or controls 25 percent or more of the entity’s ownership interests. However, entities in which Tribes have ownership interests may still have to report one or more individuals as beneficial owners in certain circumstances.

Entity Is a Tribal Governmental Authority. An entity is not a reporting company—and thus does not need to report beneficial ownership information at all—if it is a “governmental authority,” meaning an entity that is (1) established under the laws of the United States, an Indian Tribe, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or under an interstate compact between two or more States, and that (2) exercises governmental authority on behalf of the United States or any such Indian Tribe, State, or political subdivision. This category includes tribally chartered corporations and state-chartered Tribal entities if those corporations or entities exercise governmental authority on a Tribe’s behalf.

Entity’s Ownership Interests Are Controlled or Wholly Owned by a Tribal Governmental Authority. A subsidiary of a Tribal governmental authority is likewise exempt from BOI reporting requirements if its ownership interests are entirely controlled or wholly owned by the Tribal governmental authority.

Entity Is Partially Owned by a Tribe (and Is Not Exempt). A non-exempt entity partially owned by an Indian Tribe should report as beneficial owners all individuals exercising substantial control over it, including individuals who are exercising substantial control on behalf of an Indian Tribe or its governmental authority. The entity should also report any individuals who directly or indirectly own or control at least 25 percent or more of the ownership interests of the reporting company. (However, if any of these individuals own or control these ownership interests exclusively through an exempt entity or a combination of exempt entities, then the reporting company may report the name(s) of the exempt entity or entities in lieu of the individual beneficial owner.)

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California