When an employee reports a concern regarding fraudulent or illegal behavior, an employer’s immediate response is likely to open an investigation, stop any wrongdoing, and take appropriate corrective action. In the race to manage a challenging situation, it is easy to overlook the possibility that an investigation not conducted properly might actually create additional liability,

Ever since California enacted legislation in 2018 requiring a certain number of female board directors for publicly-held corporations with principal executive offices in California, board diversity continues to be a significant topic.  Maryland, Massachusetts, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Washington, New Jersey, Michigan and Pennsylvania have introduced or passed legislation or resolutions related to board

The need for an effective compliance program to assist companies in preventing, detecting and, if necessary, promptly correcting issues before they become problems is nothing new. However, there is an increased focus by the government designed to induce employees to report suspected unlawful conduct by their employers to regulatory agencies. While this focus may benefit

A California federal jury awarded Sanford Wadler, former General Counsel of Bio-Rad Laboratories, $8 million for his claims against his former employer under the whistleblower provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the Dodd-Frank Acts (DFA). This case implicates a number of key issues confronting companies and their in-house legal teams, including:  (1) protections and scope of

On May 20, 2015, a split Fourth Circuit panel ruled Deltek, Inc., a Virginia-based software and information services provider, must pay a terminated whistleblower four years of front wages and thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in college tuition. In doing so, two thirds of the panel affirmed the U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board’s determination

In a decision perhaps overshadowed by the Second Circuit’s subsequent decision in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC, 14-4626 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2015) two days later, a district court in California has added to the growing split among federal courts on the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision. In Davies v. Broadcom Corporation,

The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) provides that defendants convicted of crimes committed by “fraud or deceit” to compensate victims for the full amount of their losses.

The federal court of appeals in Denver has held that mere estimates of a company-victim’s expenses in investigating the defendant’s theft of approximately $50,000 worth of

Two former executives at one of the nation’s leading healthcare claims processing firms, MultiPlan, Inc., were recently sentenced to serve one year and one day in federal prison for their role in a scheme to steer contracts to technology vendors in exchange for $3.4 million in bribes and kickbacks.

Keith Bush, MultiPlan’s former Vice President

The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) provides that defendants convicted of crimes committed by “fraud or deceit” compensate victims for the full amount of their losses.  Whether the amount of restitution may be offset if an employer-victim actually profited from the fraud or deceit has been a question for the courts.

According to

While the primary goal for employers should be avoiding employment retaliation claims in the first instance, when an employer is faced with such a claim under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), it has the Department of Labor’s basic procedural road map as a guide to what to expect.

On April 3, 2014,