Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 22 lawyers have been named as 2023 The Best Lawyers in America and 2023 Ones to Watch.
Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review.
The following were chosen as The Best Lawyers in America:
Gaetan Alfano
Pamela Coyle Brecht
Phillip R. Earnest
Mark Gordon
James W. Kraus
James F. Marrion
Richard J. Parks
William Pietragallo, II
Francis E. Pipak, Jr.
Kevin E. Raphael
Marc Stephen Raspanti
Douglas K. Rosenblum
Clem C. Trischler
Peter St. Tienne Wolff
The following were chosen as The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch:
Lee K. Goldfarb
John Kettering
Alexander M. Owens
Stephen F. Raiola
Mark T. Sottile
Frank H. Stoy
About Pietragallo
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More
The Typical Qui Tam Case Life Cycle
In a typical qui tam case, the sequence and life cycle follow a similar trajectory. The relator files a sealed qui tam complaint in a federal courthouse in the United States. While COVID has disrupted litigation, particularly complex False Claims Act (FCA) litigation, the basic case path still remains. Although the statute provides for a 60-day investigation period, cases may—and very often do—remain under seal for years. The defendant may or may not know about the sealed case. A Civil Investigative Demand (CID), or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) subpoena, search warrant, or grand jury subpoena may place the defendant on constructive notice of an active civil and/or criminal investigation. The government often requests partial unsealing orders to engage the defendant in resolution discussions. Early resolution is not always successful. Fewer than 25% of the time, the government intervenes in some or all of the relator’s allegations.[1] Qui Tam complaints often contain both federal and state allegations that typically involve federal and state prosecutors along with myriad investigative agencies. These complaints often contain a 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) retaliation claim, as well as other private causes of action. Sometimes the government takes no position. Other times the government declines to intervene in some or all of the allegations. Of significance to this article, the number of cases moving forward on a non-intervened basis has increased considerably over the last decade.[2]
The Unsealing of a Qui Tam Complaint
Once the government makes its intervention decision in the qui tam case, the case is unsealed by a court. The usual procedural banter between the government, defense counsel, and the relator and their counsel depending on the specific posture of the case then occurs. At times, media coverage follows the unsealing, which can complicate matters for certain types of defendants. Read More
Takeaway: The DOJ’s Cyber Fraud Initiative and qui tam actions under the False Claims Act represent signification enforcement mechanisms for cybersecurity contractor compliance.
On the eve of 2022, the United States began imposing new, punitive cybersecurity measures aimed at making the internet a safer platform for businesses to share and use data. As a direct result, cybersecurity contractors working in the defense industrial base are being targeted by the Department of Justice, resulting in a rapid increase of settlements under the False Claims Act.
Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum reminding contracting officers about their remedies against contractors that fail to implement NIST 800-171 cybersecurity controls. NIST 800-171 is a self-administered cybersecurity requirement for all DoD contractors. The DoD memorandum urges contracting officers to use available remedies, withholding progress payments, foregoing remaining contract options, and potentially terminating the contract in part or in whole.[1]
The following cases serve as cautionary tales to cybersecurity contractors:
If a cybersecurity contractor knowingly fails to comply with material cybersecurity requirements, the contractor could be exposed to liability via qui tam actions under the False Claims Act.[2]
The recent Aerojet Rocketdyne settlement is foretelling.[3] Aerojet’s Senior Director for Cybersecurity filed the Aerojet action in April as a whistleblower under the False Claims Act. The action alleged that Aerojet fraudulently induced the government to contract with the aerospace company by not fully disclosing its non-compliance with DoD cybersecurity requirements. The action sought $19 billion in damages.
The evidence showed that Aerojet communicated with the government about its non-compliance as it had sought a waiver of certain requirements. The presiding court, however, found “a genuine dispute of material fact [] as to the sufficiency of the disclosures” and thus denied Aerojet’s motion for summary judgment. The court found, upon a deeper investigation, that Aerojet failed to disclose pertinent information about cyber audits conducted by external firms, as well as past security breaches. Read More
Robert Weinberg authored “Preparing Clients to Work with Mental Health Professionals in Custody Cases” published in the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer, Vol. 43, Issue 1. Read More
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to be recognized by the 2022 Chambers USA High Net Worth Guide in Band 1. Chambers ranks leading law firms and attorneys across the U.S. based on the opinion of their clients and peers, and by the quality of their work.
Chambers USA notes that Pietragallo’s fiduciary, estates and trust litigation practice advises on complex fiduciary litigation and trusts disputes. Managing partner William Pietragallo, II and partner Peter St. Tienne Wolff are also individually recognized in Band 1 for their work in Private Wealth Dispute Law in the state of Pennsylvania.
About Pietragallo
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More
Pietragallo partner Marc Raspanti will be joined by speakers Jon May and Gabriel Albu (Europe) to speak at the World Online Lawyers with Excellent Practice’s (WOLEP) webinar on Wednesday, July 13th at 10:30am EST.
They will be taking on the topic of “Whistleblower statutes in the United States and the European Union – regulations, commonalities and differences, perspectives”.
Some of the issues addressed during this WOLEP webinar will be:
The difference between how whistleblowers are viewed in the US and the EU
The origin of whistleblower statutes in the US
The movement toward greater whistleblower protections in the EU
The various programs in the US that reward whistleblowers
Case studies, including the representation of a European whistleblower making a disclosure to US authorities
Please note that, at the end of the event there will be a Q&A session, so we urge you to tune in and join the debate!
Join the webinar here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3019722258?pwd=WHVFdEYwTWtLT2orTVkwYm8wZUZIUT09
Meeting ID: 301 972 2258
Passcode: wolep Read More
On March 15, the United States and the European Commission (EU) entered into negotiations to create the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (Framework). This effort is the third of its kind showcasing the legal complexity involved in creating a mechanism that fosters secure data flows between the United States and European Union, and provides redress for EU individuals who are targeted by U.S. government surveillance activities.
The Framework promises a vehicle through which companies can share data in ways they couldn’t before thereby expanding global business. If the Framework operates as promised and intended, a data flow-reliant market worth $7.1 trillion could be supported and encouraged.
Procedural Background
Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), personal data is prohibited from being transferred from the European Economic Area (EEA) to countries outside the EEA. The European Commission has the authority to determine what countries have an adequate level of privacy protection. This analysis takes into consideration whether the country being evaluated has data controllers or processors that compensate for the lack of data protection by way of appropriate procedural safeguards.
Between the United States and the EU, there have been two previous data-sharing mechanisms designed to provide a relatively easy “self-certification” method for U.S. companies to satisfy the safeguard requirement, each of which has been invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
In October 2015, the CJEU determined that the first mechanism, the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (Safe Harbor), was invalid in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, Case C362/14, Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, 2015 EU:C:2015:650 (Oct. 6, 2015) [hereinafter Schrems I]. In Schrems I, the CJEU found that the Safe Harbor failed to adequately protect the privacy of EU citizens because of the U.S. government’s ability to access personal data for national security purposes. In response to this determination, the United States and EU developed the new EU-U.S. Read More
Pietragallo partner Peter St. Tienne Wolff will be presenting on “Are We There Yet? McAleer and The Fiduciary Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege” at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s 2022 Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section Annual Retreat taking place August 3-5, 2022. Peter’s panel will be on Wednesday, August 3 at 3:45pm.
Peter and his fellow panelists will discuss attorney-client privilege when fiduciaries and trustees are involved. They’ll discuss where it stands after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether Pennsylvania law recognizes the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege in In re Estate of William K. McAleer and what this case means to the future of the fiduciary exception.
To register, visit https://www.pabar.org/site/Events-and-Education/Event-Info/sessionaltcd/RPPT82. Read More
