How companies should prep for enforcement shift to state AGs
“Top Cop” is how every state Attorney General wants to be known. In reality, state AGs have far more authority for civil enforcement…
August 23, 2017 at 09:05 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
“Top Cop” is how every state Attorney General wants to be known. In reality, state AGs have far more authority for civil enforcement than they do for criminal prosecution. Their civil authority can be vast when partnering with federal agencies, utilizing federal enforcement statutes, and coordinating U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) criminal investigations.
If DoJ however lessens its pursuit of criminal enforcement, will state AGs pick up the slack? Certainly, and companies and executives should consider how to uniquely engage state AGs. Three areas of potential criminal enforcement – false claims, financial fraud and antitrust – provide insight into how state Attorneys General, especially in multi-state coordination, can take outsized action.
State AGs are distinct from federal prosecutors in that most AGs are elected officials. As a result they respond to a mix of legal, policy and political considerations. If DoJ changes its enforcement priorities, state AGs are the ones to hear the public demands for increased aggressive action to protect consumers.
Every state AG enforces a version of unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) statutes for consumer protection. AGs can further do so through joint enforcement actions with federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). AGs can enlarge their enforcement power with multi-state actions, often coordinated through the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). On top of this, AGs may use criminal authority as provided under state law.
False Claims / Medicaid and Health Care Fraud
Every state AG office maintains a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit with authority to investigate and prosecute false Medicaid program billings including overbilling and kickbacks. Furthermore, many states have enacted expansive false claims acts for AGs to pursue health care fraud such as off-label marketing.
State AGs participate with DoJ in significant health care fraud actions and recoveries. For example, recent, and massive, DoJ and state AG false claims settlements include: in 2012, GlaxoSmithKline for $3 billion including criminal fines for off-label use, physician kickbacks, and false statements; in 2013, Janssen Pharmaceuticals for $2.2 billion including criminal fines for promoting uses not approved by FDA and physician kickbacks; and in 2016, Tenet Healthcare for $513 million including forfeiture under a guilty plea for kickbacks in return for patient referrals.
Indeed, the 2017 NAAG presidential initiative focused on the healthcare marketplace, including increasing prescription drug costs and actions of companies in the pharmaceutical supply chain. A clear signal of where AGs are primed to enforce.
Financial Fraud
The magnitude of mortgage fraud investigations in the past decade has certainly highlighted the influence of Attorneys General. State AGs were out in front of their federal counterparts to achieve the $25 billion settlement, often driven by public demands for tougher action. AGs, whether through their own independent authority or in conjunction with state agencies, can investigate financial crimes including tax, insurance, or other types of fraud including investment schemes.
For example, last year the California Attorney General opened a criminal investigation of identity theft when one of the largest U.S. banks created unauthorized accounts. Earlier this year, the 50 state AGs agreed to conclude a multi-state investigation of Western Union wire fraud, only after DoJ obtained a criminal settlement of related violations and $586 million in victim compensation.
State AGs and their NAAG affiliation have participated with federal agencies in the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. If the task force ceased to exist, there is little doubt from recent enforcement history that AGs would step up their own actions.
Antitrust
Recently unsung, state AG antitrust enforcement can come in potent forms. State AGs may bring actions under federal statutes, they may bring actions on behalf of consumers or the state, and they may do so under their own state's civil or criminal laws. Often AGs conduct parallel investigations with DoJ and the FTC.
DoJ and state AGs maintain a protocol for prosecutorial responsibility, though in the absence of federal interest, states could independently pursue price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation conspiracy. AGs can do so with injunctions, treble damages, and criminal penalties. For instance, the Michigan AG recently pursued Chesapeake Energy on criminal charges to a settlement while DoJ conducted its own criminal investigation, with an indictment of the CEO.
At the ABA Antitrust meeting this spring, top lawyers from the New York and Tennessee AG offices announced they were ready to fill the gap should the federal government relax its efforts. Appointments and personnel changes at DoJ's Antitrust Unit and at the FTC will soon bear out those federal priorities.
The Takeaway
While awaiting a potential shift in the Administration's enforcement priorities, companies and executives can take steps now in regard to the broad authority that state AGs possess.
First, listen to what the lawyers in AG offices are listening to. Assistant AGs often develop cases from the same sources you may hear – from a 60 Minutes segment or a New York Times article, from civil complaints filed by plaintiffs' lawyers, or from legal publications including reports of actions undertaken by other AG offices.
Second, respond to what AGs themselves will respond to. AGs can have extensive sources of information and action whether persistent media inquiries, advocacy group demands, or even congressional oversight hearings that highlight issues nationally.
Third, think as the AGs think. Remember state Attorneys General are public officials affected by a mix of legal, policy and politics. Every AG is uniquely motivated along these lines, and AGs share information and collaborate with one another. Yet AGs are much more accessible than federal regulators and prosecutors. Getting engaged in the world of state AGs to educate and advocate for your business and your industry is the best action a company can take.
Joe Jacquot is a partner at Foley & Lardner LLP and represents entities before the 50 state Attorneys General. He previously served as chief deputy attorney general of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250