Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney Explains Being Paid as a Whistleblower

The term “whistleblower” represents a person who finally brings justice to a situation where injustice has prevailed. Exposing companies for wrongdoings can even make a whistleblower a hero in some situations. However, whistleblowers can usually expect a legal fight as companies are not in the business of admitting guilt.

Rewards come in the form of justice finally being served, but the rewards do not stop there. Rewards can also come in the form of financial compensation. In some cases, whistleblowers have been awarded millions of dollars. That financial figure is usually contingent upon the amount of work carried out by the whistleblower to aid in the recovery of funds. The kind of fraud reported also lends a hand in how much compensation is awarded to the actual whistleblower.

So how does a whistleblower get paid? A gracious percentage of the funds recovered are distributed to the whistleblower. Therein lies is the motive of financial rewards along with a search for justice.

Many whistleblower cases occur in the medical field as health care organizations and pharmaceutical companies are no strangers to cutting corners for profits. A 2012 case in Mississippi involving a medical equipment company led to a $1.8 million payout. That figure was not the actual amount given to the whistleblower, which in this case was Wendy Horne. For her part in the case, Horne’s payout stood between 15 and 25% of the funds recovered by the guilty company.

The 15 to 25% range is typical for a successful whistleblower and that generally comes with government involvement. However, if the government does not get involved, a whistleblower can receive as much as 30% of the settlement amount.

Whistleblowers can remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Whistleblowers often become fearful of repercussions that might come from the accused party, expecially ones with a great deal of power and influence. Anonymity can also be attributed to a simple request for privacy.

Companies continue to retaliate against whistleblowers, a trend that is starting to reach an all-time high. A lack of ethics contributes to this ongoing trend. However, those who are unafraid to take on companies or corporations should refer to a whistleblower’s checklist before they step into such a volatile situation. Before you blow the whistle and take your first step towards a big payday, make sure the following areas are covered:

You Present Ample evidence of Fraud

  • The overbilling for a certain product or service
  • Obtaining of funds through falsification of documents
  • Violation of laws in order to obtain funding
  • Misconduct when it comes to sales, bribery or market manipulation
  • Failing to report an overpayment

You File First

  • If someone else has already filed a claim for the same reasons, you will be unable to do so. Check and make sure no one else has already filed your exact claim.

 You Provide Original Evidence

  • You will have to come up with evidence that has not or could not otherwise be obtained. Evidence gathered from public sources is not deemed original. There needs to be an intimate and inside knowledge or gathering of previously unreported information.

Your Case is Not Barred By the Statute of Limitations

  • Certain claims can only be filed within a certain amount of time of a violation.  Speak with a qualified Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney to make sure that your claim is still valid before blowing the whistle.

If you have inside information on some kind of company misconduct, contact the seasoned Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney at Barrett Law PLLC. You will need plenty of legal assistance and advice in going through this process. Our team of qualified lawyers can walk you through every step and make sure all your rights are protected. Call us today for a free confidential consultation at (800) 707-9577.

/by

What Rights Do You Have as a Whistleblower?

When an employee reports a serious problem at his place of employment and his boss responds by terminating the employee, the worker may have a cause of action against his former company.  Depending on the employee’s job, he may be able to get help from OSHA.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) handles investigations into certain retaliatory workplace terminations.  Some of the types of reports that lead to wrongful termination claims investigated and pursued by OSHA include:

  • Safety issues in the workplace;
  • The presence of asbestos in schools;
  • Airline infractions;
  • Wrongful actions taken by commercial motor carriers;
  • Consumer product dangers;
  • Environmental concerns;
  • Financial improprieties;
  • Health insurance violations;
  • Automotive defects;
  • Public transportation concerns;
  • Nuclear plant errors; and
  • Securities law violations.

These are only broad categories and there are many types of reported wrongdoing that may lead to a whistleblower investigation.  A person who believes that his termination was the result of a report that he made should contact OSHA as soon as possible after the termination or demotion in pay or responsibilities.  There are other behaviors that qualify as a violation of an employee’s rights as a whistleblower.  When an employer or former employer attempts to blacklist the employee from other jobs or professional organizations, there may be cause for a case.  Other possible violations include:

  • Being denied a promotion or being passed over for overtime;
  • Having disciplinary reports made in the employee’s record;
  • Not being hired on a permanent basis;
  • Reassignment to position that is less desirable than the previous role;
  • Transfer to another location;
  • A reduction in assigned work hours or the hourly rate of pay;
  • Suspension from employment, with or without pay; or
  • Any other actions that are adverse to the interests of the employee.

            A person may file a complaint in person, over the telephone, or through a written communication.  The date of the communication, regardless of the date on which it is received, serves as the date of the complaint.  Generally, an employee must file the complaint within thirty (30) days of the retaliatory action.  There are no specific forms for filing a complaint.  Public employees are not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, with the exception of post office employees.  OSHA evaluates the merits of a filed complaint and then decides whether there is evidence of retaliation based on the following findings:

  • The employee was participating in a protected activity when he acted as a whistleblower;
  •  The employer learned about the employee’s action or had reason to suspect that the employee had reported a violation;
  • The employer took action that was adverse to the employee’s position or wages; and
  • The employer was motivated, at least in part, by the employee engaging in the protected activity.

If OSHA determines that the employer retaliated against the employee, it may attempt to negotiate a resolution with the employer.  If this fails, OSHA may take action that includes issuing on order addressing the following remedies:

  • Mandating that the employer reinstate the employee;
  • Paying the employee all back wages that were lost as a result of the wrongful termination or demotion;
  • Restoring lost benefits; and
  • All other actions necessary to make the employee whole after the wrongful actions of his employer.

In light of the above, keep in mind that the employer does have the right to contest the order.

It is important to contact an experienced whistleblower protection attorney as soon as you learn about retaliatory actions by an employer.  The Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC understand how to work with you and the appropriate regulatory agency in order to get justice for the wrong that was done when your employer took action against you for engaging in a protected activity.  To discuss what happened to you in a free and confidential consultation, call us at (800) 707-9577.

/by

University of California Agrees to $10 Million Whistleblower Payment

In order to end litigation surrounding a whistleblower-retaliation case brought against the University of California – Los Angeles’ orthopedic surgery department by its former chairman, the UCLA Regents have agreed to a payment of 10 million dollars to compensate the former chairman for his role in exposing industry payments to UCLA doctors that may have jeopardized patient health.  The case arose out of consulting payments made to doctors at the David Geffen School of Medicine, as well as other financial connections between large medical companies and UCLA.

Dr. Robert Pedowitz asserted in legal filings that he reported conflicts of interest that existed when medical industry representatives made payments to medical professionals that might lead to patient care that was not in the best interest of the patient.  Dr. Pedowitz alleged that UCLA, the Regents of the University of California, and fellow surgeons, as well as senior officials in the university system, failed to take appropriate actions when informed about these problems and subsequently retaliated against Dr. Pedowitz by demoting him, excluding him from certain grant applications, and taking other actions that were adverse to his professional interests.

Although UCLA denies any wrongdoing and asserts that patient care was not compromised and that there were no financial improprieties or retaliation, the Regents agreed to the settlement in order to avoid any further litigation.

The allegations of wrongdoing relate to the influence that a medical device manufacturer might have on a surgeon who had a financial connection to the medical company.  In addition, there was the possibility of compromised research when the doctor conducting the study was receiving money from a medical company that was invested in a particular outcome of the research.  Dr. Pedowitz reported that the university also would benefit financially from certain research results if it led to the commercially successful pharmaceuticals or medical devices.

This whistleblower-retaliation case comes at an important time because the Physician Payments Sunshine Act will go into effect in the fall of 2014.  This component of the new healthcare law requires disclosure of financial connections between doctors and healthcare companies.  For many patients, a doctor who was receiving a quarter million dollars per year in consulting fees from a medical device company who then strongly recommends a treatment based on a product or drug manufactured by that company might not be trusted.  The issue of informed consent is critical for proper patient care and it is difficult to separate large financial incentives with neutral treatment recommendations.

As part of the whistleblower complaint that was initially filed in 2011, Dr. Pedowitz agreed to step down from his position in the orthopedic surgery department, effective immediately.  He had been recruited into the position of chairman in 2009, but was demoted in 2010, after he had raised concerns about the improper financial practices.  One of the protections of bringing a whistleblower complaint is that a complainant’s job is protected.  However, settlements often involve a separation agreement because it is difficult for parties who were involved in contentious and protracted litigation to be able to resume a productive work relationship.  Many whistleblower claims that are resolved prior to this point may result in the complainant resuming his job duties, particularly if the whistleblower case led to widespread changes in policy.

When an employee has done the right thing and reported serious problems only to find himself being retaliated against by his employer, it is important to get the right legal help as soon as possible.  The knowledgeable and hardworking Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC are committed to getting the best results possible for our clients.  Please call us at (800) 707-9577 to schedule a confidential and free consultation about the wrongdoing that you have experienced.

/by

Supreme Court Debates Issue of Free Speech and Whistleblower Protections

            The United States Supreme Court has heard arguments in an interesting case that involves First Amendment protections for free speech and the interplay with whistleblower protections.  There are a number of gaps in whistleblower protection laws, particularly when the employee works for the state or federal government.  Many of the protections for government employees do not extend to every worker or only address the actions of specific government agencies.  This case, Lane v. Franks, 13-483, is expected to be decided by June 2014.

            This case deals with the issue of what protections exist for employees who testify in court against their employers.  The philosophy behind the various whistleblower protection laws is that an employee should not be punished for doing the right thing and reporting wrongdoing in the workplace.  However, what happens when no specific law applies to a particular employee who is drawn into legal proceedings against his employer and is subpoenaed to testify.  In the case of Edward Lane, who was employed by an Alabama community college program, he was fired.

            Mr. Lane began working as a director of a college youth program in 2006.  Shortly after he began his new position, he learned that state representative Sue Schmitz was on the payroll, but did not regularly appear in her listed capacity.  As a result, Mr. Lane terminated Representative Schmitz, but was warned that the action could lead to the termination of his own job.  Soon thereafter, Mr. Lane was subpoenaed to testify in a legal action against Schmitz.  He was terminated after testifying at the first of two fraud trials.  Both the federal district court and the 11th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Lane, with the district court finding that the First Amendment did not protect Lane testifying as an employee and the 11th Circuit upholding the lower court’s decision.

            The Supreme Court now is considering arguments that the First Amendment offers protections against retaliation for these employees.  In previous cases heard by the Court, the Justices have found that the First Amendment only protects individuals who are speaking out in the capacity of private citizens and not in their roles as employees testifying about their jobs.  Although many of the Justices seemed to believe that protection for employees reporting about government wrongdoing was very important, even if that information was learned while working for the government, the question seemed to be how broad the protection should be.  There are many instances where offering testimony in court is part of the job duties of an employee, for example a criminal investigator who routinely appears in court to present evidence in ongoing cases.  The issue appeared to be whether First Amendment protections should be extended so far that these instances were covered.

            It appeared that some of the Justices were making a distinction that if testifying in court was not part of the job description of the employee, then in the moment when he was testifying as the result of a subpoena, he was acting as a private citizen.  This position was supported by the deputy solicitor general arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, who asserted that the First Amendment protections should be extended to government employees except for those who routinely investigate and testify in court.

            This case is being closely monitored by organizations that work towards whistleblower protections against retaliation.  Whistleblower laws have been evolving over many years.  Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, there may be more changes to ensure that all employees are encouraged to report instances of misconduct and fraud.

            The Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC are dedicated to maintaining our skills in these types of cases as the law continues to change.  We work hard to ensure that our clients get the benefits of these protections.  If you have been the victim of retaliatory actions by your employer, call us at (800) 707-9577 to learn how we can help you.

/by

The United States Supreme Court Upholds Whistleblower Protections

In the case that was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawson v. FMR, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-3),  the arguments made by FMR, LLC, the parent company of Fidelity Investments (Fidelity), that whistleblower protections should not extend to contractors working for the company, were ultimately rejected.  This case affirms the position that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblower protection extends beyond direct employees.  In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that whistleblower protections apply to the subcontractors who do business with the publicly traded companies covered by the terms of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including law firms, accounting firms, investment advisers, and other companies.

At issue in this case was the whistleblower protection provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in 2002 as a means of reforming financial transactions.  The Act created a set of standards for management and public accounting firms, as well as publically traded company boards.  Attorneys arguing against the broad interpretation of the whistleblower protection provision stated that the ruling would expand the application of the protection from 5,000 companies to more than a million businesses, including small businesses.

This case arose out of the termination of the contract of a senior director of finance and another individual after they reported some improprieties with cost-accounting. Fidelity Investments has mutual funds that are public companies required to file reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  However, the management of the funds is carried out through private companies that are under contract.  The whistleblowers in this case, Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang, worked for Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC. They brought a whistleblower retaliation case against Fidelity after they were terminated, allegedly as the result of reporting improper company practices.  Due to the fact that Fidelity uses a contractor model to operate its funds, there are no direct employees.  The dissenting judges stated that the decision was too broad, leading to the possibility of lawsuits brought by low-level employees who were terminated for other reasons after viewing a trivial offense.  These federal retaliation claims could be brought against small businesses, leading to many cases that would not have been brought otherwise.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was based on the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act granted whistleblower protection to “any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent.”  The Court ruled that it was not possible for Congress to have passed an act that did not offer protection to someone like Jackie Hosang Lawson and Jonathan Zang, the Fidelity contractor employees who brought the retaliation claim.  In writing the opinion for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed the arguments that there would be a lot more retaliation claims by stating that there was little evidence that the floodgates would open.

When a person brings a retaliation claim against a former employer stating that the employment was terminated or the employee was demoted based, at least in part, on retaliation for reporting a financial impropriety.  The employee only needs to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard while the employer must show that the employee was terminated or demoted for legitimate reasons by clear and convincing evidence.  Under the interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the financial impropriety might be based on mail fraud or wire fraud.  Critics of the ruling claim that this imbalance will lead to inequity.

Whistleblower protections are necessary to provide a means of redress for employees who were terminated after reporting a problem within the business.  Although it is never easy to go through a lawsuit, the skilled and compassionate whistleblower and qui tam attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will work with you to enforce your rights and hold the company accountable for your wrongful termination.  To discuss what happened to you, call us at (800) 707-9577.  Our attorneys only get paid if we succeed on your claim.

/by

Securities Exchange Commission Enters into Whistleblower Case against Siemens

There was a whistleblower retaliatory termination action filed against Siemens A.G.by Meng-Lin Liu, who was a Division Compliance Officer for Siemens China, which is a subsidiary of Siemens A.G.  Liu alleged that Siemens China was engaged in a kickback scheme to sell medical imaging equipment to public hospitals in China and North Korea through intermediaries who would send a portion of the proceeds to the officials who granted the contracts to Siemens China.  Liu made a number of attempts to change the company policies and reported the possibility of corruption to a number of different people within the company.  Over a period of time, Siemens China stripped responsibilities from Liu and eventually informed him that he should not report to work for the remainder of his employment contract and that the contract would not be renewed.

Liu brought a whistleblower retaliation action against Siemens A.G. under the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and its anti-retaliation provisions as related to reports of wrongdoing pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other regulations under the umbrella of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  Siemens argued that the whistleblower protections did not apply because Liu only reported the problems internally while an employee of Siemens China.  Liu only went to the SEC after he was terminated.  For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the whistleblower protections at issue did not extend to extraterritorial retaliation terminations, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  However, the court did not rule on the question of whether the Dodd-Frank protections extended to whistleblowers who reported company improprieties internally, but did not go to the SEC with the reports of wrongdoing.  The case is now back in the courts.

The SEC has been indicating for some time that it was going to begin to take action against companies that retaliated against employees who reported improprieties internally, but did not pursue an external report.  In the Siemens case, the SEC filed an amicus brief, known as a “friend of the court” filing, in which the SEC asserted that its interpretation of the provision in Dodd-Frank that protected against retaliation extended the protection to employees who only followed internal reporting protocols.

Although the SEC has been giving warnings that it intended to wade into this battle for some time, the filing of the amicus brief outlining its position on the application of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections to internal whistleblowers.  This position may provide additional security for employees who are considering reporting company wrongdoing.

The outcome of this court case can have serious repercussions on the development of internal policies.  If the court were to decide that Siemens’ assertions are correct, it could signal a new company policy where the company would be motivated to terminate an employee who reported improprieties as quickly as possible before he had a chance to go to the SEC and report the problems.

When an employee discovers that the company for which he works has done something wrong, he has a difficult decision to make.  If he reports the problem, he incurs the risk of losing his job.  Whistleblower protections are intended to ensure that an employee can do the right thing while being assured that he will not lose his livelihood.  If you are facing a retaliation termination, the knowledgeable and committed whistleblower and qui tam attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will work with you to develop an effective legal strategy.  We will sit down with you during a free initial evaluation.  To schedule an appointment, please call us at (800) 707-9577.  We only receive a fee if we succeed in getting you a payment on your claim.

/by

New York Federal Court Judge Revives Hawker Beechcraft Corp. Whistleblower Case

A whistleblower case that was precluded by the ruling of a bankruptcy court judge has been given new life by a New York federal court judge.  In March 2012, Hawker Beechcraft filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  When Hawker Beechcraft Corp. went through the bankruptcy process, it had a 2.3 billion dollar False Claims Act case pending against it.  The action was based upon allegations that the company had used defective parts in manufacturing planes that were subsequently sold to the U.S. government.

The bankruptcy judge ruled that the claims did not satisfy the stringent requirements for exemptions of some types of debts that prevented them from being written off in the reorganization plan.  However, the recent federal court ruling now gives the whistleblowers the chance to argue their case in bankruptcy court, even though a bankruptcy exit plan is in place, the company emerged from bankruptcy in 2013, and Hawker Beechcraft now has been sold to Textron Inc.

Two former employees of a subcontractor to Hawker Beechcraft, TECT Aerospace Inc., are going to be able to argue that they are entitled to recover on behalf of the government for defective plane parts in planes that were purchased by the U.S. government.  The False Claims Act provides private citizens with the right to bring actions based on wrongdoing done to the U.S. government.  In the matter of Hawker Beechcraft, the planes with defective parts were purchased by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, thereby involving fraudulent actions impacting government entities.  This case involves possible penalties up to 2.3 billion dollars.  When an action like this is brought, the private citizen who initiated the case gets a portion of the damages that ultimately are awarded.  This action proved to be very complicated because of the bankruptcy of Hawker Beechcraft.

After the Hawker Beechcraft bankruptcy was filed, the bankruptcy judge ruled that there was nothing about the False Claims Act action and the potential monetary award that justified it being exempt from the write off of debts in bankruptcy.  There are very few exceptions to this rule, which include student loans, child-support payments, and damages awards arising out of drunk driving injuries.  The bankruptcy judge determined that the claims did not fit within the narrow loophole.  The two claimants asserted that the dismissal of their whistleblower lawsuit was improper based on the fact that it was grounded in allegations of government contracting fraud.  A New York judge now has agreed with them and they will get a second chance at recovering for the fraudulent actions of Hawker Beechcraft.

The recent decision by Judge P. Kevin Castel grants whistleblowers the right to argue their claims in bankruptcy court.  However, it by no means guarantees them a recovery, merely gets them in the door.

Whistleblower laws are intended to encourage private citizens to hold companies accountable for wrongdoing while offering protection from retaliation.  However, there are times when the companies do retaliate against the employees for stepping up and doing the right thing.  If you have been terminated or demoted because you reported a problem, the experienced and hardworking attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will develop a legal strategy based on the unique needs of your case.  To schedule a free initial consultation, call us at (800) 707-9577.  Our commitment to our clients means that we only get paid if we recover the compensation that you deserve.

/by

Well-known Tobacco Whistleblower, Merrell Williams, Jr., Recently Dies

Merrell Williams, Jr. died in Ocean Springs, Mississippi on November 18, 2013.  Williams was a controversial whistleblower who was one of the main reasons many of the dangerous or fraudulent actions of the big tobacco industry were brought to light, but the manner in which this came about was the subject of great debate.

Williams was a paralegal with a law firm in Louisville, Kentucky, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, which did a lot of legal work for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company.  In 1994, Williams leaked a very large amount of documents that he previously had copied, which resulted in lawsuits that ultimately culminated in the tobacco industry paying billions of dollars into settlements and funds to cover the medical problems suffered by smokers.  The files that Williams leaked clearly demonstrated the tobacco industry’s awareness that the cigarettes did in fact cause cancer, that nicotine was addictive, and that there were marketing campaigns aimed at getting children hooked on cigarettes.

The controversy that surrounded the leaking of the tobacco companies records related to the fact that he was acting as a paralegal with Brown & Williamson as a client, and the tobacco company accused Williams of a breach of attorney-client privilege.  In addition, there was evidence that an anti-tobacco attorney who was bringing suits against the tobacco industry had paid for a house, a boat, two vehicles, and a job that paid $3,000 per month, but did not require any attendance at an office, for Williams.  Williams claimed that these were actually the result of loans that he was repaying.

 When Williams joined the Louisville law firm, he was one of a number of employees who was tasked with reviewing thousands of pages of documents in order to craft defenses to the many tobacco-related personal injury lawsuits that were being brought against tobacco companies.  Williams saw documents demonstrating that the tobacco companies had scientific research from their own scientists detailing the dangers of smoking.  The same year that he joined the firm, 1988, Williams began taking documents out of the firm hidden under his clothing.  He would copy them at different copy stores and then return the originals.  From 1990 to 1992, Williams tried to get law enforcement agencies or anti-tobacco groups interested in the documents he had taken.  After being laid off in 1992, he notified the law firm of his intention to bring litigation against the firm based on job stress-related illness, but the tobacco company of Brown & Williamson sued him first on the basis of theft and breach of contract.  Williams defended his removal of the documents on the basis that they revealed criminal activity.

An attorney in Florida eventually became interested in the documents in 1994.  This attorney was the one who provided the house and other high-value items to Williams.  Although the admissibility of the documents was debated, they ended up in court cases and in public hands.  The case against the tobacco industry was significantly bolstered when Jeffrey Wigand, who had been an executive with Brown & Williamson, went public with company secrets in 1996.  The tobacco settlement in 1998 resulted in the top four tobacco companies agreeing to cover tobacco-related medical bills for 46 states over 25 years.

Regardless of the controversy that surrounds his disclosure of documents, Merrell Williams, Jr. was a whistleblower whose actions contributed significantly to the tobacco companies being held responsible for their wrongdoing.

Barrett Law PLLC Advocates on Behalf of Whistleblowers

The decision to take action to expose injustices despite possible repercussions is a very brave one that deserves the best possible legal support.  The hard-working Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will provide an honest evaluation of your case in a confidential initial consultation, without charge, and develop a legal strategy that meets your unique circumstances.  To schedule an appointment, call us at (800) 707-9577.  We only receive legal fees if we recover for you.

/by

Whistleblower in JPMorgan Chase Fraud Case to Be Paid $63.9 Million

Under the False Claims Act, those people who learn about the efforts of businesses to defraud the federal government through fraudulent practices or the submission of false documents may receive a portion of any payments that the government is able to recover from the wrongdoer.  This percentage may range up to thirty percent (30%) of the total recovery.

In the matter of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan), according to news reports, the company admitted that it used fraudulent or deceptive practices in order to entice the federal government to insure home loans that were not financially sound.  JPMorgan entered into a settlement with the government and whistleblower in which it acknowledged that for more than ten years it had submitted loans to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veteran Affairs that did not meet the requirements to qualify them for federal guarantees.  The financial settlement mandates that JPMorgan pay 614 million dollars back to the government and take affirmative steps to provide more oversight over the loan process.

The information that triggered the investigation into JP Morgan was provided by Keith Edwards, who brought a False Claims Act case against JPMorgan.  Edwards had worked for JPMorgan or one of its predecessors from 2003 to 2008 and had the  position of an assistant vice president dealing with government insurance.  After Edwards initiated the suit, the federal government joined the action as a plaintiff.  On Friday, March 7, 2014, the amount of payment was revealed in a court filing in the United States District Court in Manhattan, which marked the conclusion of the legal case against JPMorgan.

Part of the case against JPMorgan included allegations that the company’s internal review process had turned up the problem with the loans, but that it did not disclose these issues.  As a result of these unqualified loans being insured by the government, there were millions of dollars in payouts when homeowners that could not meet the terms of their mortgages defaulted, resulting in foreclosures across the country.

The payment that the whistleblower is going to receive includes approximately 56.5 million dollars resulting from payments made to the government to reimburse insurance payments that were made by the Federal Housing Administration and another 7.4 million dollars resulting from reimbursement to the Department of Veteran Affairs.  Mr. Edwards brought the legal action under the False Claims Act, initiating the case in January 2013.  The case was brought under the provisions that permit United States citizens to bring action against government contractors whose actions have defrauded the government.

This whistleblower payment is one of a number of very large payments made by the government as a result of the financial crisis that hit the mortgage industry in 2008.  The Justice Department stated at the end of 2013 that it had paid out nearly 2 billion dollars in whistleblower awards from 2009 through 2013, although not all of these related to mortgage lenders.

Barrett Law PLLC Represents Whistleblowers Who Expose Fraudulent Practices

The False Claims Act allows ordinary citizens to make a real difference in exposing corporate wrongdoing.  When a person decides to take action, it is important to have knowledgeable and committed attorneys who will work with the individual in putting together a complicated case.  At Barrett Law PLLC, our team of Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys have the experience and dedication to ensure that those who are willing to come forward have the support that they need to succeed in holding wrongdoers accountable.  To discuss your case in a confidential initial consultation, call us at (800) 707-9577.  We do not recover any fees unless we succeed on your behalf.

/by

Whistleblower in JPMorgan Chase Fraud Case to Be Paid $63.9 Million

Under the False Claims Act, those people who learn about the efforts of businesses to defraud the federal government through fraudulent practices or the submission of false documents may receive a portion of any payments that the government is able to recover from the wrongdoer.  This percentage may range up to thirty percent (30%) of the total recovery.

In the matter of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMorgan), according to news reports, the company admitted that it used fraudulent or deceptive practices in order to entice the federal government to insure home loans that were not financially sound.  JPMorgan entered into a settlement with the government and whistleblower in which it acknowledged that for more than ten years it had submitted loans to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration or the Department of Veteran Affairs that did not meet the requirements to qualify them for federal guarantees.  The financial settlement mandates that JPMorgan pay 614 million dollars back to the government and take affirmative steps to provide more oversight over the loan process.

The information that triggered the investigation into JP Morgan was provided by Keith Edwards, who brought a False Claims Act case against JPMorgan.  Edwards had worked for JPMorgan or one of its predecessors from 2003 to 2008 and had the  position of an assistant vice president dealing with government insurance.  After Edwards initiated the suit, the federal government joined the action as a plaintiff.  On Friday, March 7, 2014, the amount of payment was revealed in a court filing in the United States District Court in Manhattan, which marked the conclusion of the legal case against JPMorgan.

Part of the case against JPMorgan included allegations that the company’s internal review process had turned up the problem with the loans, but that it did not disclose these issues.  As a result of these unqualified loans being insured by the government, there were millions of dollars in payouts when homeowners that could not meet the terms of their mortgages defaulted, resulting in foreclosures across the country.

The payment that the whistleblower is going to receive includes approximately 56.5 million dollars resulting from payments made to the government to reimburse insurance payments that were made by the Federal Housing Administration and another 7.4 million dollars resulting from reimbursement to the Department of Veteran Affairs.  Mr. Edwards brought the legal action under the False Claims Act, initiating the case in January 2013.  The case was brought under the provisions that permit United States citizens to bring action against government contractors whose actions have defrauded the government.

This whistleblower payment is one of a number of very large payments made by the government as a result of the financial crisis that hit the mortgage industry in 2008.  The Justice Department stated at the end of 2013 that it had paid out nearly 2 billion dollars in whistleblower awards from 2009 through 2013, although not all of these related to mortgage lenders.

Barrett Law PLLC Represents Whistleblowers Who Expose Fraudulent Practices

The False Claims Act allows ordinary citizens to make a real difference in exposing corporate wrongdoing.  When a person decides to take action, it is important to have knowledgeable and committed attorneys who will work with the individual in putting together a complicated case.  At Barrett Law PLLC, our team of Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys have the experience and dedication to ensure that those who are willing to come forward have the support that they need to succeed in holding wrongdoers accountable.  To discuss your case in a confidential initial consultation, call us at (800) 707-9577.  We do not recover any fees unless we succeed on your behalf.

/by