Alstom Hit Hard With Settlement For Bribery

French engineering giant Alstom.  SA agreed to pay $772 million to settle accusations that it paid millions of dollars in bribes to win energy contracts, prosecutors said on Monday.
That amount represents the largest-ever criminal penalty the U.S. Department of Justice has gotten from a company on bribery-related charges.

The record criminal penalty in part reflects what prosecutors saw as an initial failure of the company to fully cooperate, according to people familiar with the matter.

U.S. authorities have ramped up overseas bribery enforcement in recent years, often investigating foreign companies that have a subsidiary located within the U.S. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it a crime to bribe a government official in exchange for business.

“This investigation spanned years and crossed continents, as agents from the FBI Washington and New Haven field offices conducted interviews and collected evidence in every corner of the globe,” said FBI Executive Assistant Director Anderson.  “The record dollar amount of the fine is a clear deterrent to companies who would engage in foreign bribery, but an even better deterrent is that we are sending executives who commit these crimes to prison.”

Alstom pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal information filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, charging the company with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by falsifying its books and records and failing to implement adequate internal controls.  Alstom admitted its criminal conduct and agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $772,290,000.  U.S. District Judge Janet B. Arterton of the District of Connecticut scheduled a sentencing hearing for June 23, 2015 at 3pm.

In addition, Alstom Network Schweiz AG, formerly Alstom Prom (Alstom Prom), Alstom’s Swiss subsidiary, pleaded guilty to a criminal information charging the company with conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.  Alstom Power Inc. (Alstom Power) and Alstom Grid Inc. (Alstom Grid), two U.S. subsidiaries, both entered into deferred prosecution agreements, admitting that they conspired to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.  Alstom Power is headquartered in Windsor, Connecticut, and Alstom Grid, formerly Alstom T&D, was headquartered in New Jersey. 

According to the companies’ admissions, Alstom, Alstom Prom, Alstom Power and Alstom Grid, through various executives and employees, paid bribes to government officials and falsified books and records in connection with power, grid and transportation projects for state-owned entities around the world, including in Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Bahamas and Taiwan.  In Indonesia, for example, Alstom, Alstom Prom, and Alstom Power paid bribes to government officials – including a high-ranking member of the Indonesian Parliament and high-ranking members of Perusahaan Listrik Negara, the state-owned electricity company in Indonesia – in exchange for assistance in securing several contracts to provide power-related services valued at approximately $375 million.  In total, Alstom paid more than $75 million to secure $4 billion in projects around the world, with a profit to the company of approximately $300 million.   

Alstom and its subsidiaries also attempted to conceal the bribery scheme by retaining consultants purportedly to provide consulting services on behalf of the companies, but who actually served as conduits for corrupt payments to the government officials.  Internal Alstom documents refer to some of the consultants in code, including “Mr. Geneva,” “Mr. Paris,” “London,” “Quiet Man” and “Old Friend.”

Xarelto Safe or Deadly??

 

The use of the medicine Xarelto, while originally believed to help prevent the formation of blood clots, has reportedly led to serious bleeding issues and, ultimately, adverse medical events or even death to numerous patients. Legal remedies may be available to residents who have been injured or lost a loved one due to the use of dangerous and defective drugs, such as Xarelto.

Xarelto was released for consumption back in 2011. It, like many other drugs of its type, was created to reduce a patient's risk of developing deep vein thrombosis, stroke and a variety of other blood-clot-related injuries. The manufacturers of this product promoted it as a superior medication compared to others of its kind. Since its release, millions of consumers have been prescribed this medication, but, unfortunately, numerous patients have also come forward claiming the use of this drug has caused severe medical issues -- or worse.

Some of the common issues blamed on this drug include internal bleeding and brain hemorrhages, among others such as

• bleeding that is severe or can't be controlled

• unexpected bleeding, or bleeding that lasts a long time

• menstrual bleeding that is heavier than normal

• vaginal bleeding

• bleeding from the gums

• black stools (that look like tar)

• bright red stools (have blood in them)

• coughing up blood and/or blood clots

• feeling dizzy or weak

• frequent nose bleeds

• headaches

• pain, swelling, or new drainage at wound sites

• red, pink, or brown urine

• vomit that looks like coffee grounds

• vomiting blood

• bruising easily

 Stay tuned for more information about the allegations raised against manufacturers Johnson & Johnson and Bayer, the developers of Xarelto.

NCAA Concussion Case Was Enough Money Awarded?

 

Plaintiffs in the NCAA’s concussion case submitted

documents earlier this week arguing that the $75 million

settlement funds were sufficient to fund a 50-year

medical monitoring program. Those documents were

submitted at the request of US District Judge John Lee,

 who is presiding over the case.

 

        CBS Sports  reports that Lee denied

preliminary approval for the settlement on Wednesday,

citing several concerns he wants to see addressed. Lee

was concerned the settlement won’t fully fund the

medical monitoring program because of the inclusion of

student-athletes from non-contact sports. Lee asked for

a more specific framework of a medical monitoring

committee that will evaluate student-athlete

questionnaires, because if the “method used to

 determine who receives a medical evaluation” it

wrongfully limits those who are eligible, “the health of

individual who should be receiving treatment could be

endangered.” He also raised concerns over the ability for

the plaintiffs and NCAA to notify class members since

many have been out of school for more than ten years.

Attorney Jay Edelson, representing plaintiff Anthony

Nichols, said the settlement is dead and indicated that

he will instead “aggressively” pursue a series of class-

action lawsuits against individual universities.

 

        The Chicago Tribune states that Lee’s concern over

the ability of the settlement to fund the program depends

on participation rates calculated by experts for the

plaintiffs, which Lee said “are not reliable.”

 

        The AP adds that Lee also questioned

whether the NCAA has jurisdiction to implement

concussion policies and wonders how they would

enforce them in the event of non-compliance.

      

  The New York Times notes that though Lee had several

concerns, he called the proposal “a significant step in

trying to arrive at a resolution.” Furthermore the Times

says that a rejection of a preliminary settlement isn’t

unusual. 

       

False Claim Act Helps Hold Trinity Accountable For Cutting Corners!

 

Virginia is suing the guardrail maker Trinity Industries, saying that it sold the state thousands of pieces of potentially dangerous, improperly tested and unapproved products.

We first reported on this a couple of months ago when it was first discovered they have been cutting corners to save money in manufacturing.

 

The suit makes Virginia the first governmental entity to participate in whistle-blower suits against Trinity, which is based in Dallas. The suits were brought on behalf of state and federal governments, but none of those entities, until now, have been plaintiffs.
 

In October, a jury found that Trinity had defrauded the federal government when it did not inform the Federal Highway Administration of changes it made to the guardrail, the ET-Plus, in 2005. The company sold the guardrails to state governments, which, in turn, received federal reimbursement.

 

The jury returned with a verdict for $175 million, which will, by law, be tripled, to $525 million. The highway agency did not participate in the federal case.

 

It is shocking that a company would think they could secretly modify a safety device in a way that may actually pose a threat to Virginia motorists,” he said. “Trinity had an obligation to test and seek approval for its equipment, but instead, they sold the commonwealth thousands of unapproved products that had not been properly tested to ensure they would keep motorists safe.”

Trinity said it would defend itself against Virginia’s lawsuit. “Trinity did not commit fraud against the Commonwealth of Virginia,” said Jeff Eller, a spokesman for Trinity. He said it was “conducting the eight tests requested by the F.H.W.A., which includes the two tests specifically requested by Virginia,” and had “given them all the data they have requested.

 

In addition to the Virginia case, a separate lawsuit was filed by counties in Illinois. Prosecutors in Hamilton and Macon counties sued Trinity in federal court on Nov. 26 on behalf of all Illinois counties, accusing the company of a “fraudulent cover up” and deceptive trade practices, court records show.

 

 

Virginia and more than 30 other states have banned the guardrail products, which are suspected of having a defect that could make them jam. When that happens, the rail can pierce a vehicle. More than a dozen other private lawsuits blame the guardrails for five deaths and more injuries.

 

In October, after the federal jury verdict, Virginia’s Transportation Department threatened to remove the guardrails if Trinity did not do more tests. Soon after, the federal highway agency required further testing.

FDA Getting Kickbacks For Favorable Evaluations?

“Pharmalot” blog reports on an analysis conducted by the

Journal that revealed that many of the physicians and

other professionals who sit on FDA advisory panels to review

medical devices have financial ties to manufacturers,

although the agency has refrained from disclosing the

relationships. The analysis reviewed panels from 2012

through 2014, and found that of the 122 people who sat on

the panels evaluating devices, one-third received some form

of compensation, including money, research grants or travel

and food from companies. Additionally, almost 10% of FDA

advisers received compensation directly from the specific

company whose product was up for evaluation. The

regulatory agency only disclosed 1% of the connections. FDA

Associate Commissioner Jill Hartzler Warner explained to the

Journal, “If you have a financial interest with a sponsor or a

related firm, but it’s not related to the product at the meeting,

it’s not disqualifying.”

-How Common Are Kickbacks Between Medical Professionals and Medical Device Producers?-

• 

Reports from New York state that the medical device maker Stryker “will pay about $80 million to end a federal investigation into its acquisition of a company that the U.S. said was marketing a product that hadn’t been approved by regulators.” Stryker said that the Justice Department “acknowledged that the sales occurred before Stryker bought OtisMed in 2009, and that it was unaware of those sales.” Stryker “first revealed the federal investigation in 2010 and set aside $80 million to cover any future settlement.” 
        Bloomberg News reports that OtisMed “will pay a fine of $34.4 million and forfeit $5.16 million in a criminal case, while paying a civil fine of $41.2 million.” 

It's funny that is just about the same amount as they had saved up!!

The firm pleaded guilty in a Newark, NJ Federal court “where former Chief Executive Officer Charlie Chi also pleaded guilty.” The company “admitted it never obtained U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval to sell 18,000 custom-built devices used by surgeons, from 2006 to 2009 to make accurate bone cuts to implant prosthetic knees.” OtisMed “applied for FDA approval in October 2008, and the agency said 13 months later the company hadn’t shown it was safe and effective.” Chi “then shipped 218 devices to surgeons, overruling his advisers and board and with disregard of consumer safety."

Pharmaceutical- and device-makers paid doctors roughly $380 million in speaking and consulting fees, with some doctors reaping more than half a million dollars each, during a five-month period in 2013,according to an analysis of federal data released. Other doctors made millions of dollars in royalties from products they helped develop.

This is a real example of why, we as consumers


really need to follow our instincts if we feel something is


wrong the medical field is trained, but they also love to get


kickbacks.

Maricopa College District Settles Whistleblower Claim!

 

 

Reports from Phoenix that the Maricopa

County Community College District “has agreed to pay

more than $4 million to settle claims that it submitted

false information for education awards.” Justice

 Department officials said on Monday that the settlement

will ensure that money from the Corporation for

National and Community Service is given only to eligible

 individuals.” A whistleblower suit “alleged that the

college district lied about the number of service hours

students had to complete to be eligible for education

awards,” and that “the college district improperly

received grant funding to administer the project.”

 

        The Arizona Republic reports the district’s

governing board “approved the fine Nov. 25

and it was agreed to by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The case “dates back to 2011, when the federal

government began investigating student work from 2007

 through 2010 with Project Ayuda, which was

administered at Paradise Valley Community College.”

The Republic notes that Christine Hunt, a district

employee, “had filed a whistleblower lawsuit over the

matter and she will receive $775,827 of the $4 million.”

The settlement did not determine liability. 

 

The really scary thing about it, is if you do a

 

search for Maricopa College and lawsuit they are

 

no stranger to the courtroom.