Tag Archives: Roberto Finzi

NY DFS Files Enforcement Action Against Opioid Manufacturer for Insurance Fraud

by H. Christopher Boehnig, Roberto Finzi, Michael E. Gertzman, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Brad S. Karp, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, and Patrick Cordova

On April 16, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) issued a Statement of Charges and Notice of Hearing against Irish pharmaceutical company Mallinckrodt plc and several of its U.S. subsidiaries (collectively, “Mallinckrodt”). [1] The administrative hearing will take place on August 24, 2020, before a hearing officer appointed by the DFS Superintendent. According to DFS, Mallinckrodt committed insurance fraud in violation of New York law by allegedly misrepresenting the efficacy and safety of opioids to patients and healthcare professionals, causing an over-prescription of its drugs, the cost of which was ultimately passed on to New York insurance companies and their policyholders. Continue reading →

VinDAX Is the Seventh Cryptocurrency Exchange Hacked This Year: What Should Investors Be Considering?

by Mark S. Bergman, Roberto Finzi, Christopher D. Frey, Manuel S. Frey, David S. Huntington, Jeannie S. Rhee, Raphael M. Russo, Jonathan H. Ashtor, Steven C. Herzog, Daniel J. Klein, and Apeksha S. Vora

On November 5, 2019, Vietnam-based cryptocurrency exchange VinDAX was hacked, losing half a million U.S. dollars’ worth of funds spread across 23 different cryptocurrencies.[1] The VinDAX hack marks the latest in a series of cryptocurrency exchange hacks and data breaches that have taken place this year, and is part of a larger and growing trend of digital currency heists that have occurred since Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency, was introduced in 2008.[2] In July of this year, Japan-based cryptocurrency exchange Bitpoint was also hacked, losing about $32 million in cryptocurrency,[3] and earlier this year, hackers stole $16 million worth of cryptocurrency from New Zealand-based Cryptopia.[4]  Losses from cryptocurrency hacks this year alone are reported to have totaled around $1.39 billion worth of assets.[5] Continue reading →

Supreme Court Rules That Costs of Internal Investigation Are Not Recoverable As Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996

by Jessica S. Carey, Roberto Finzi, Michele Hirshman, Lorin L. Reisner, Richard C. Tarlowe, Christopher D. Frey, Nairuby L. Beckles, and David Giller

On May 29, 2018, in Lagos v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (the “MVRA”)[1] does not require a criminal defendant to pay the costs and attorneys’ fees associated with an internal investigation conducted by a corporate victim.[2] The Court left open the question of whether the MVRA extends to the costs of an internal investigation that is conducted at the government’s request or invitation. Continue reading →

Recent Decision Finds Waiver Based on “Oral Downloads” to the SEC

by Brad S. Karp, Jessica S. Carey, Andrew J. Ehrlich, Roberto Finzi, Michael E. Gertzman, Michele Hirshman,  Daniel J. Kramer, Lorin L. Reisner, Richard A. Rosen, Audra J. Soloway, Richard C. Tarlowe, Andrew D. Reich, and Joseph Delich

A federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida recently ruled that a law firm had waived work product protection over notes and memoranda of witness interviews when it provided “oral downloads” of those interviews to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

In a December 5, 2017 opinion, SEC Herrera, No. 17-cv-20301 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2017), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman indicated that he was “not convinced” that “there is a meaningful distinction between the actual production of a witness interview note or memo and providing the same or similar information orally.”[1]

The opinion serves as an important reminder of the risks of waiver—and the need to take steps to minimize those risks—when disclosing information to a government agency. Continue reading →