TEVA Agrees to Pay $54 Million to Settle McEldrew Young False Claims Act Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuit

0

Attorney Eric. L. Young announced today that Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., and Teva Sales and Marketing, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “TEVA”) have settled allegations in a qui tam complaint filed by McEldrew Young, Attorneys-at-Law, and co-counsel, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP (“SFMS”), on behalf of two relators, Charles Arnstein and Hossam Senousy, both of whom previously worked as sales representatives for TEVA.

The allegations in the qui tam complaint focused on a scheme to induce physicians to write prescriptions for the drugs Copaxone and Azilect by paying them as “speakers” or “consultants,” when, in reality, many of the programs at issue were sham events. As a result of TEVA’s allegedly illegal payments, the physicians prescribed Copaxone, which treats relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, and Azilect, which treats symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, and influenced other prescribers to do the same.

According to the complaint, physicians who participated in the alleged sham speaker programs wrote prescriptions for the two drugs that were filled at pharmacies across the country.  After filling and dispensing the prescriptions, the pharmacies then submitted claims for reimbursement to various government-funded health care programs.  The pharmacies’ claims resulted in payments by the government for prescriptions that were allegedly induced through fraud, i.e., TEVA’s alleged illegal payments to physicians who wrote the prescriptions.  Since TEVA’s actions allegedly caused the submission of false claims to the government via the dispensing pharmacies, those actions constituted violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.

The complaint also alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a -7b, which, among other things, criminalizes “knowingly or willingly” offering or paying a person “remuneration,” in the form of  kickbacks, bribes, or rebates, to “induce” that person to “recommend” the purchase of a drug covered by a “Federal health care program.” 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2).  Simply stated, the AKS prohibits a pharmaceutical manufacturer from offering, directly or indirectly, any remuneration to induce a physician to prescribe, or a Medicare patient to purchase, that manufacturer’s drugs.

The AKS was amended in 2010 to explicitly state that “a claim that includes items and services resulting from a violation of [the AKS] constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of [the FCA].”  42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g). Thus, a claim submitted to a government-funded health care program for a prescription drug in violation of the AKS also constitutes a violation of the FCA.  The 2010 amendments also reduced the standard for “intent” under the AKS, such that “a person need not have actual knowledge of [the AKS] or specific intent to commit a violation of [the AKS].”  42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(h).

Background

McEldrew Young and SFMS filed the original qui tam complaint on behalf of the relators in May 2013.  The complaint alleged that, beginning in 2003, TEVA provided bogus honoraria or speaking fees to physicians for participation in numerous sham speaker programs in connection with the drugs Azilect and Copaxone.

On November 18, 2014, the United States, along with the various state and municipal governments that were also named as plaintiffs in the complaint, notified the Court of their decision to decline intervention in the case.  On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an Order unsealing the complaint while confirming that the various governments had declined to intervene in the action.

Despite the governments’ decision against intervention, McEldrew Young and SFMS were not deterred in prosecuting the case on behalf of their clients, as well as the federal, state and municipal governments that suffered damages as a result of TEVA’s allegedly illegal practices. “Although we were faced with an adversary of disproportionate size and considerably greater resources, we remained steadfast and aggressively prosecuted the case based on our belief in our clients and the correctness of our position,” said Eric Young, managing partner of McEldrew Young’s whistleblower practice. McEldrew Young and SFMS were assisted during litigation by co-counsel David J. Caputo and Joseph Trautwein of Youman & Caputo, LLC, and Heidi A. Wendel of Heidi Wendel Law.

Summary Judgment Motion

On February 27, 2019, Chief U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying TEVA’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.  In a detailed, seventy-page opinion, Judge McMahon rejected numerous arguments asserted by TEVA and ruled that all allegations of TEVA’s FCA violations would proceed to trial on the merits, which was scheduled to start on August 19, 2019.

In dismissing TEVA’s assertion that the AKS required evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement, the Court found that the relators’ complaint raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether TEVA had violated the AKS.  The Court also ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the efficacy of TEVA’s compliance program.  Although TEVA’s written compliance polices had “all of the right language,” the Court noted that the existence of those policies had no bearing on whether TEVA actually adhered to them.

Settlement of Complaint Allegations

“This settlement helps ensure that when a physician chooses a prescription drug for his or her patient, that choice will be motivated solely by the best interests of the patient and not tainted by any improper financial considerations,” said Eric Young.  Mr. Young added, “We were inspired by the level of our clients’ commitment to hold TEVA accountable for its alleged misconduct.  Today’s result is also a victory for American taxpayers who are the ultimate victims when unscrupulous individuals and companies defraud the government, oftentimes with impunity.”

As the managing partner of McEldrew Young’s whistleblower practice, Eric Young has a distinguished track record of success.  Mr. Young has recovered more than $2 billion dollars for the government on behalf of his whistleblower clients. McEldrew Young represents whistleblowers from across the country and abroad.  Many whistleblower cases are brought under the False Claims Act, which allows a private individual, known as a relator, to file a lawsuit on behalf of the United States government against an individual or company that has perpetrated a fraud against the government.  If a relator successfully recovers funds on behalf of the government, he or she may receive a reward of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the civil monetary recovery if the government intervenes, and up to thirty percent (30%) if the government declines to intervene, such as in this case.

Case citation: United States ex rel. Arnstein and Senousy v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-03702-CM-OTW (S.D.N.Y.)

Cascade of Errors Led to Fatal Fire at Pennsylvania Nursing Home

0
fatal fire lawsuit Philadelphia

West Chester, PA – A woman whose parents burned to death in a nursing home fire claims in court that a series of blunders by multiple parties resulted in a preventable catastrophe. 

Behind the Opioid Epidemic

0
drug lawyers Philadelphia

The United States Department of Justice and numerous state governments have intervened in numerous qui tam whistleblower suits, including one brought by Philadelphia based law firm McEldrew Young Purtell against INSYS Therapeutics, Inc. [1]. The suit alleges, among other things, that INSYS engaged in a nationwide illegal scheme to increase profits from Subsys, a fentanyl sublingual spray and schedule II controlled substance.

Financial Professionals Win Big in Appeals Court Ruling

0

The Association for Financial Professionals features Eric L. Young and James McEldrew analysis of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that historic Sarbanes Oxley legislation empowers financial professionals to assert their professional ethics and standards questioning the legality of bills and invoices on the “reasonable belief” that their employers are engaging in fraudulent activities in the April issue of Payments.

The article is accessible at http://www.afponline.org/pub/store/pubs/payments.html, a free access site requiring registration for the full text of the article.

United States Joins Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Novartis Pharmaceuticals

0

Philadelphia, Pa, April 26, 2013 PRWeb, Young Law Group (www.young-lawgroup.com; e-mail: eyoung@young-lawgroup.com)

The United States Department of Justice has announced that it is intervening in a qui tam whistleblower suit under the False Claims Act accusing Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation of fraudulently billing Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and other federal and state-funded healthcare programs by Novartis’ Cardiovascular Diseases Division through a wide array of kickback schemes involving drugs including Lotrel, Valturna, and Starlix.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara announced the intervention in court documents that were unsealed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 26, 2013.

“Novartis’ pervasive business practices to fraudulently market numerous drugs including Lotrel, Valturna, Starlix, Tekturna, Diovan, and Exforge, cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars” said Eric L. Young, Esquire, Young Law Group, who, with James E. Miller, Esquire, of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller, and Shah, LLP, and John Minnino, Esquire, of Minnino Law Offices, is representing the whistleblower, former Novartis sales representative, Oswald Bilotta.

“Novartis’ payment of kickbacks to increase market share is yet another example of abuse in the pharmaceutical industry that contributes to skyrocketing medical costs,” said James E. Miller, Esquire, of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller, and Shah, LLP.

The whistleblower complaint alleges that Novartis committed massive taxpayer fraud by marketing drugs Lotrel, Valturna, Starlix, Tekturna, Diovan and Exforge through a widespread “pay to play” scheme whereby the company paid off doctors who prescribed its drugs.  As detailed in the government’s intervention Complaint, Novartis’ Cardiovascular Division engaged in a number of schemes whereby the company paid kickbacks to doctors to ensure increased prescriptions at the federal government’s expense.

None of this is new for Novartis. In September 2010, the company announced that it would pay approximately $422 million in criminal and civil fines and penalties to resolve claims that it had paid kickbacks to prescribers of Trileptal, Diovan, Zelnorm, Sandostatin, Tekturna, and Exforge, in addition to claims that the company had promoted some of these drugs for unapproved uses. Nonetheless, Novartis continued paying kickbacks and promoting drugs for unapproved uses, the complaint alleges.

After retaining SFMS, Minnino, and YLG, the whistleblower filed a qui tam lawsuit in federal district court in Manhattan on January 5, 2011. The qui tam case was kept under seal, meaning that it was not known to the public, while the government investigated the allegations.  “Thanks to courageous people like Mr. Bilotta, perpetrators of fraud are being held to account for fraudulent sales and promotional activities that artificially increases the burden on taxpayers . . . we are confident based upon the evidence presented by Mr. Bilotta and the results of the ensuing government investigation that Novartis will be held to account for its wrongs”, said Mr. Young, a veteran qui tam litigator.

Case citation: U.S. ex rel. Oswald Bilotta v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Corp., S.D.N.Y. 11-CV-00071-PGG.

Young Law Group, specializes in representing whistleblowers (“relators”) throughout the United States and internationally in qui tam lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows private individuals to sue companies that are defrauding the federal government and to recover funds on the government’s behalf. Whistleblowers may be entitled to 15 percent to 30 percent of the civil recoveries that result from the qui tam lawsuit.

SFMS represents clients, including business entities, consumers, individual and institutional investors, fiduciaries, state and other governmental entities, and whistleblowers, in complex litigation and other matters with offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

John Mininno, Esq. has offices in Collingswood, N.J. with practice areas including False Claims Act litigation.

Contact: Young Law Group
123 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19109
Phone 215-367-5151
www.young-lawgroup.com
Eric Young, Young Law Group, 215-367-5151, eyoung@young-lawgroup.com
 
 

Is The SEC Serious About Whistleblowers?

0

Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) released its first annual report on its Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program.  Reaction to the report has been mixed.  Some point to the 3,001 tips the agency has received during its first year and see a sign of positive progress.  To others, a program that has made only a single whistleblower payout of $50,000 is laughable compared to the trillions of dollars being handled by Wall Street.

Since this is the first year of the SEC whistleblower program, it is impossible to predict the long-term trend of the program.  We can, however, compare the SEC program to the IRS Tax Fraud Whistleblower Program to get a sense of whether the SEC is moving forward with purpose.  The SEC whistleblower program is very similar to the IRS whistleblower program, in that, unlike a Qui Tam case, you cannot litigate an SEC whistleblower case on your own in the absence of the Federal government.  If the SEC investigates your claim and decides that it is not worth pursuing, then that’s the end of the matter.

For the IRS, there have been justifiable concerns about whether the IRS is serious about pursuing whistleblower cases.  The IRS whistleblower office opened for business in 2006, but it took until 2011 for the IRS to make its first whistleblower payout.  (This was a Young Law Group case that resulted in $4.5 million being paid to our client.)  The IRS has paid out only a handful of rewards to date, which is very discouraging.

Here we are, only one year into the SEC whistleblower program, and the SEC has already made its first whistleblower payout.  If we use the payout history of the IRS program as our guide, the SEC is moving forward with its whistleblower program with an astonishing sense of urgency.

In our experience with the IRS, cases can languish.  You can file a whistleblower case and hear nothing at all from the IRS for years about your filing.

We have several cases on file with the SEC under its whistleblower program, and the SEC appears to be enthusiastic about the receipt of whistleblower claims and expedient in its response.  Actions speak louder than words, and thus far the actions of the SEC demonstrate they are being responsive in doing their intake, reviewing the information, and asking to interview clients.  Of course, not everyone reports a similarly quick response from the SEC to their claims, but our experience in filing Qui Tam and IRS tax evasion cases suggests that how you file makes a big difference in the success of a case.

These are complex cases and they take time to investigate and resolve.  If you use the False Claims Act as your benchmark, even though it’s a completely different process, it usually takes a year or two for the government to thoroughly investigate a whistleblower’s allegations before making a decision about how to proceed with a particular matter.  The SEC whistleblower program has been in place for less than a year and a half.  Over the next year or two, we will have a much better sense for how many cases the SEC’s whistleblower office is going to resolve.

Our own experiences with the SEC indicate that it is truly serious about whistleblowers, that it is moving forward on investigating complaints, and that we will see many more cases being resolved and much larger awards in the near future. If you encounter securities fraud (which can include misconduct such as the issuance of false or misleading statements in financial reports of public companies, outright theft, insider training, ponzi schemes and front running misconduct), please contact us for a free consultation on whether you should file a whistleblower complaint.

Young Law Group, P.C., Attorneys-at-Law, represents whistleblowers nationwide. For a free confidential consultation with one of our SEC whistleblower attorneys, please call Eric L. Young, Esquire at 1-800-590-4116 or email to eyoung@young-lawgroup.com.

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012

0

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, President Barack Obama signed into a law the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (“WPEA”). This bill is the culmination of over a decade of activism by the protectors of whistleblower rights in response to continued judicial erosion of whistleblower rights.

In 1989 the Whistleblower Act was passed with the understanding that it would protect whistleblowers who work for the government who report government fraud, waste, and abuse.  However, from October of 1994 to May of 2012, courts have consistently ruled against whistleblowers in favor of employee supervisors.  In fact, it has been reported that only 3 out of 229 cases have been decided in favor of the whistleblower.

Among those cases is Ceballos v. Garcetti, (4)a Supreme Court case which decided that the whistleblower does not have First Amendment protection for protected speech in reporting prosecutorial misconduct.  The Supreme Court decided that to qualify as a protected whistleblower, a Federal employee, past or present, must disclose a violation of any law or regulation involving gross waste of funds and abuse of authority or specific danger to the public.  The whistleblower, to preserve his or her rights, must make a report to someone other than the wrongdoer and there must be a personal action or threat against that whistleblower.  Moreover, the whistleblower was required to seek redress first pursuant to his/her agencies administrative process before appealing to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).  Thereafter, any adverse decision could be appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal.

However, the MSPB and the Federal Circuit Court have consistently found against the whistleblower.  In September 2010 a report to President Obama was made detailing the difficulties of a potential federal whistleblower.  In this report Chairman Susan ­Grundman of MSPB stated:

“The law can be quite different from common parlance.  In the Federal Government not everyone who discloses wrongdoing will be considered a whistleblower and not every act of retaliation against a whistleblower is legally redressable (sic)”

The report however failed to mention that only 1.7% of the cases have been decided in favor of the federal employee.  Nor does the report mention that in Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999), cert. denied, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in requiring that the whistleblower rebut a mandatory presumption that public officers perform their duties correctly, fairly and in good faith and in accordance with the law with irrefutable proof to the contrary.  See also Alaska Airlines v. Johnson, 8 F.3d 791 (Fed. Cir.1993).

In interpreting the WPA the Supreme Court has ruled that four requirements are needed to establish a violation:

  1. The acting official has authority to take, recommend or approve any personal action;
  2. That the disclosure made by the aggrieved employee is protected;
  3. The acting official used his authority against the aggrieved employee and;
  4. The action by the official was because of the protected disclosure.

In applying this 4 prong test the courts have progressively tightened the requirements of each prong of the test.

For example, the courts have held that the WPA only applied to a “covered” employee.  An employee who was involved in confidential policy determines decisions are not covered.  Moreover, employees of the postal service, the GAO, FBI, CIA and NSA were not considered covered employees.

If a disclosure is made as part of an assigned duty and ordinary channels are used the disclosure is not protected.  Kahn v. Dept. of Justice, 528 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Also, a report directly to the wrong doer is not protecting and therefore the wrongdoer’s retaliation against the aggrieved employee is also unprotected.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 was authored by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) who said “Federal employees who risk their careers to step forward and disclose waste fraud and abuse save tax payers and make our government more efficient.  They absolutely deserve our support and I so proud that these new protections are enacted into law.”

Among these added protections are:

  1. Closed the first to report loophole giving protection to subsequent filers;
  2. Giving Whistleblowers the power to challenge governmental policy decisions :
  3. Overrules the almost impossible standard that requires “irrefragable” evidence to rebut the presumption that the acting official that the official was acting with color of the law to a more subjective standard of whether the aggrieved employee has a “reasonable belief” that the employee had disclosed information of mismanagement or fraud;
  4. Expands the definition of covered employee to include government scientists, intelligence personnel and TSA employees

Most importantly the new bill takes exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the MSPB  away from the Federal Circuit to allow local Circuit Court of Appeals to review these appeals. In light of the Federal Circuit’s 98% record against Whistleblowers, this is a very welcome change.

Young Law Group, P.C., Attorneys-at-Law, represents whistleblowers nationwide. For a free confidential consultation, please call Eric L. Young, Esquire at 1-800-590-4116 or email to eyoung@young-lawgroup.com.

 

 

 

For-Profit Colleges Preying On Returning Veterans

0

Report: For-Profit Colleges Preying On Returning Veterans

On November 17, 2012, the Merced Sun-Star reported fears that for-profit colleges preying on returning veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill are all too real.  The author believes the GI Bill is problematic because GIs are viewed merely as “dollar signs in uniform.”

For-profit colleges are eager to sign up veterans because it allows them to count the federal funding coming from the government as separate.  Under federal regulations, for profit schools must demonstrate to the Department of Education that at least 10 percent of its income comes from sources other than Department of Education federal financial aid.  Despite the funding being “federal” in nature, because the GI Bill funding does not come directly from the Department of Education, for-profit schools are allowed to count this funding as separate which helps them meet their mandate that at least 10 percent of its income comes from sources other than Department of Education federal financial aid.

Due to for-profit colleges’ network of more than 35,000 recruiters (10 times the number of job and career counselors employed by universities), veterans should be on the lookout for high pressure sales tactics used by for-profit colleges looking to meet their 10 percent mandate of income coming from other sources.

According to the article, for-profit colleges “have been known to recruit at Wounded Warriors centers and at veterans’ hospitals, where they can corner bedridden GIs and entice them with promises of free education and more.”  The author also point out that for-profits colleges will also likely try to temp veterans with a $684 “housing” allowance that goes straight to the veteran, despite if the veteran attends an online college or the school does not have a real campus.  Money going straight into your pocket is a hard offer to refuse.  However, the amount of debt the veterans will take on to attend these schools should be taken into consideration.

To learn more about whistleblowing and for a free confidential consultation, contact Eric Young at Young Law Group today at (800) 590-4116 or email to eyoung@young-lawgroup.com.

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/11/17/2655660/jack-shakely-some-for-profit-colleges.html

SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Guide

0

SEC Publishes a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Resources Guide

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published a new resource guide for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).  The FCPA prohibits the payment of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.  The FCPA can apply to prohibited conduct anywhere in the world and extends to publicly traded companies and their officers, directors, employees, stockholders, and agents. Agents can include third party agents, consultants, distributors, joint-venture partners, and others.

The FCPA also requires issuers to maintain accurate books and records and maintain adequate internal controls to provide reasonable assurances that transactions are executed and assets are accessed and accounted for in accordance with management’s authorization.

FCPA sanctions can be significant.  The SEC may bring civil enforcement actions against issuers and their officers, directors, employees, stockholders, and agents for violations of the anti-bribery or accounting provisions of the FCPA. Companies and individuals that have committed violations of the FCPA may have to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus pay prejudgment interest and substantial civil penalties.

The sanctions for FCPA violations can be significant. The SEC may bring civil enforcement actions against issuers and their officers, directors, employees, stockholders, and agents for violations of the anti-bribery or accounting provisions of the FCPA.  Companies and individuals found in violation of the FCPA may have to disgorge their ill-gotten gains plus pay prejudgment interest and substantial civil penalties. Companies may also be subject to oversight by an independent consultant.

The SEC, among other things, enforces the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and under the new SEC whistleblower program allows those who come forward with Foreign Corrupt Practices violations to share in any penalty imposed by the SEC.

The SEC report is available here:  http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa.shtml

McEldrew Young Purtell represents whistleblowers globally reporting to the U.S. Government. For a free confidential consultation with one of our Foreign Corrupt Practices Act whistleblower lawyers, please call Eric L. Young, Esquire at 1-800-590-4116 or contact us.

IRS TAX FRAUD WHISTLEBLOWER AWARDED $104 MILLION

0

Philadelphia, PA September 12, 2012 – Whistleblower Attorneys for Bradley Birkenfeld, a jailed former Swiss banker, announced that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will award him a $104 Million as a tax whistleblower reward for detailed information he turned over to the U.S. government concerning the detailed inner workings of Swiss bank UBS’s secretive private wealth management division and illegal offshore banking scheme.

It is believed that this reward – the largest ever single reward paid to an IRS tax whistleblower – is the 4th reward paid to date since the IRS Whistleblower Program went into effect in 2006.The first IRS whistleblower award of $4.5 million was issued to an anonymous accountant in April 2011 after he exposed that his employer, a Fortune 500 financial services firm, was skimping on taxes.Since that time, the IRS has been under intense scrutiny due to the apparent lack of progress with respect to its handling of IRS whistleblower claims including scathing reports by the Government Accountability Office and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Senator Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who spearheaded the legislation that led to the creation of the IRS Whistleblower Office and who also has been vocal about his unhappiness with regard to the IRS’s slow approach to whistleblower tips, declared today, “This case provides evidence about how the whistle-blower program can be effective because the IRS is saying its work against this kind of tax fraud would not have been possible without the whistle-blower.”

The Birkenfeld case is an indication by the IRS that it takes whistleblower claims seriously while encouraging others to report fraudulent activity.Attorney Eric L. Young, of the nationally renowned Whistleblower Attorney Firm, Young Law Group, who represented the accountant who received the first ever IRS tax whistleblower award, congratulates Mr. Birkenfeld and his attorneys, “I know first-hand the challenges faced by people like Mr. Birkenfeld when stepping forward to report serious fraudulent activity.In this extreme case, Mr. Birkenfeld arguably paid the ultimate price – time in jail – after deciding to come forward.Blowing the whistle on corporate fraud and misconduct is not for the faint of heart and that is why the government pays rewards.It also underscores the importance of hiring experienced IRS whistleblower attorneys.My hat goes off to Mr. Birkenfeld and his attorneys who did a tremendous job in not only ensuring that UBS AG was held accountable for helping tax cheats, but in bringing attention to scope of efforts by wealthy U.S. citizens to evade taxes by way of off-shore bank accounts.”

Young Law Group (“YLG”) is a nationally renowned law firm specializing in the representation of whistleblowers and individuals in fraud and class action litigation. Our attorneys have litigated cases resulting in recoveries exceeding $2 Billion against corporate giants including Anheuser-Busch, Pfizer, Ikon, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, Fresenius, Merck, Aramark, and others.

To learn more about whistleblowing and how we can help protect your rights please complete our online form to the right or call us at 800-590-4116.

Update: Young Law Group is now operating as McEldrew Young Purtell. Links in the press release have been updated with our new website address.

Call Now