Marc S. Raspanti will present “Recent Developments in FCA Liability” at the ABA National Institute on Civil FCA and Qui Tam Enforcement on June 7, 2012 in Washington D.C.
Panelists include: Michael Granston; Daniel Meron; Marc S. Raspanti; Linda Wawzenski
Moderator: Jonathan L. Diesenhaus
This panel will concentrate on developing liability issues in the past year, including the express and implied false certification cases, materiality and causation, presentment, and government knowledge.
Related Information:
Program Brochure Read More
In one of the most anticipated IPOs in history, Facebook (NASDAQ: FB) shares hit the market on Friday, May 18, 2012. What first appeared to be sweet success for the multi-billion dollar company quickly turned sour, as the share price rose from $38 to $42.05, then fell to $28.84 at the close of the market on May 29, 2012. With Facebook shares having now lost more than 24% of their market value in less than two weeks of trading, government regulators have sat up and are taking notice.
From the opening bell, Facebook’s IPO suffered from a perfect storm of technical difficulties – a true irony for the social media giant. Investors who placed orders ahead of the market’s opening on May 18th learned that their orders had not been processed due to a technical error. When trading began after 11 a.m., many were left to wonder whether their orders were processed and at what price. NASDAQ Chief Executive Bob Greifeld reminded shareholders that the this was NASDAQ’s largest IPO, and the exchange processed over 570 million shares on May 18th alone. A suit filed on May 22, 2012 in Manhattan federal court seeks class action status for those investors who claim to have been damaged by the mishandling of Facebook stock orders.
NASDAQ’s technical difficulties could turn out to be the least of Facebook’s problems. As Security and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro exited a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing, she commented, “I think there is a lot of reason to have confidence in our markets and in the integrity of how they operate, but there are issues that we need to look at specifically with respect to Facebook.” Similarly, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Richard Ketchum, expressed concern: “[This] is a matter of regulatory concern to us and I’m sure to the SEC. Read More
Joseph D. Mancano will participate on the panel, “Plea Bargains” at the Annual National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in St. Petersburg, FL on May 25, 2012.
Related Information:
Program Brochure and Information Read More
Marc S. Raspanti will participate on the panel “Litigating the Healthcare Qui Tam” hosted by the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Federal Court Section. Mr. Raspanti will be presenting Healthcare Qui Tams from the Relator’s Perspective.
Date: Thursday, May 24, 2012
Time: 03:00 PM till 05:00 PM
Location: US Post Office and Courthouse, Jury Selection Room
Related Information:
Click here to register Read More
Joseph D. Mancano will present “Establishing and Managing an In-House Investigative Function” on May 16, 2012 in San Francisco, CA.
Program Description:
Establishing and managing an in-house investigative function while meeting today’s heightened regulatory compliance expectations is a challenge for any company. This panel, comprised of some of our profession’s foremost thought leaders in the area of corporate internal investigations, explores the myriad of unique issues associated with the in-house investigative function, including but not limited to, the effective drafting and implementation of investigation policies and protocols;the management of resource issues – and regulatory expectations regarding compliance resources – in a cost constrained environment; creating an effective ombuds program; responding to whistleblower complaints; and managing representation issues including those relating to the issuance of Upjohn warnings.
Related Information:
Program Brochure Read More
Marc S. Raspanti will participate on the panel, “Mediation of False Claims Act Cases” on May 9-11, 2012 in Las Vegas, NV.
This program is perfect for health care attorneys, compliance professionals, regulators, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys and qui tam relators’ counsel.
Discuss current legal and ethical issues that arise in the health care fraud practice
Learn about current government enforcement actions and priorities
Gain practical knowledge from over 60 preeminent speakers including prosecutors, regulators and more
Related Information:
Program Description Read More
The America Invents Act, which was signed into law on Sept. 16, 2011, made the most significant changes to United States patent law in decades. For example, on March 16, 2013, the AIA will transform the U.S. patent system from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-inventor-to-file” system, in which the first inventor to file a patent application will have priority over another inventor who conceived of an invention first, but did not file a patent application until after the first inventor filed. Also, the AIA contains provisions that curtail patents directed to tax strategies, eliminate the ability to invalidate a patent due to lack of disclosure of the “best mode” of practicing the invention, and eliminate certain lawsuits based on falsely marking goods as “patented.”
Furthermore, sweeping changes in the AIA are directed to the manner in which the validity of patents may be challenged in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after issuance. Under the AIA, patent validity may be challenged post-issuance using a new inter partes review process, a new post-grant review process, or using the existing ex parte re-examination process. Also, the validity of “business method” patents may be challenged under a transitional program for covered business method patents.
Post-Issuance Patent Validity Challenges Prior to the AIA
Prior to the enactment of the AIA, there were two primary proceedings that could be instituted to challenge the validity of a patent in the USPTO. The first proceeding, ex parte re-examination, may be requested by either the patent owner or a third party. In the case of a request by the patent owner, the request is often made to present relevant prior art that was not considered by the USPTO when determining whether to grant the patent. In the case of a request by a third party, the request is often made to attempt to invalidate the patent due to a threat or a perceived threat of litigation by the patent owner against the third party. Read More
On April 4, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Henry Benton, a former employee of a company engaged in the construction of a portion of the Marcellus Shale pipeline, pleaded guilty to a one count felony Information charging him with knowingly engaging in an excavation activity resulting in damage to a natural gas pipeline exceeding $50,000.00 under 49 U.S.C. § 60123(d).
According to the Information, Mr. Benton was a former employee of a construction and engineering company that was engaged to construct a natural gas pipeline, known as the Emig Line, in Cogan House Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The pipeline was to be used to transport natural gas from Marcellus Shale wells to other pipelines for storage, transmission and distribution throughout the United States.
According to the Information, Mr. Benton disregarded the location information and markings established by the operator of the pipeline facility, and used a track hoe excavator to excavate and then damage, dent and open holes in a section of the Emig Line. The claimed cost to replace the damaged section of the pipeline is $208,233.08. Following the incident, Mr. Benton was terminated from his employment after only five weeks on the job.
Under the terms of the plea agreement, Mr. Benton will be incarcerated for at least twelve months, but not more than eighteen months, followed by three years supervised release. The maximum penalty for the offense is five years incarceration. Additionally, Mr. Benton will pay restitution in an amount to be determined by the court of more than $50,000.00, but no more than the cost to replace the damaged section of the pipeline. Under the plea agreement, if the court imposes a sentence different from that agreed to by the parties, then both Mr. Benton and the Government have the right to withdraw from the agreement. Read More
Many employers routinely include arbitration provisions in their employment contracts or employee handbooks. Should your organization have one? If so, how can its provisions be made enforceable? It will only be enforceable if the language is carefully and appropriately drafted. In Quilloin v. Tenet Healthsystem Philadelphia, Inc., the Third Circuit continued to clarify the circumstances under which arbitration provisions in employment contracts will be enforced.
In Quilloin, the subject arbitration provision provided that: the employee agrees to final and binding arbitration on any and all claims, – covering all disputes relating to or arising out of an employee’s employment with the company or termination of employment; arbitration was the sole and exclusive remedy for any such claim; a waiver of the right to a trial by a jury; the employee’s maximum out-of-pocket expense for the arbitrator and the administrative costs of the American Arbitration Association would be an amount equal to one day’s pay (if the employee was exempt) or eight hours pay (if the employee was non-exempt); the request for arbitration must be made within one year, however, if there is a statute of limitations covering such claim, then the claim would be subject to the longer limitations period provided by the statute; fees and costs of the employee’s legal counsel, as well as other expenses such as costs associated with witnesses or obtaining copies of hearing transcripts, would be borne by the employee; and no remedies would be forfeited.
The Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a Fair Labor Standards Act claim (“FLSA”), and the Defendant moved to compel arbitration under the employment agreement. The district court refused to compel arbitration, concluding that the potential prohibition against recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs, the potential inclusion of a class action waiver, and the possibility that Tenet could “run out the clock” on the statute of limitations were not enforceable. Read More
Articles contained in this issue of the CLE:
Procedural Roadblocks that Can Derail Arbitration of a Construction Dispute
Undocumented Employees and Work Related Injuries
W Va Supreme Court Affirms Workers’ Comp Immunity for Employer of Temp
Ignorance is not Necessarily Bliss
Architects and Engineers Professional Liability: Redesigning the Standard of Care
Green Risk Insurance Coverage
Perfecting the Subcontractor’s Mechanic’s Lien in OH, PA & WV
Related Information:
Construction Legal Edge Fall Newsletter 2012 Read More
