Appeals Court Shoots Down $2.4B Whistleblower Suit Against Citi
In a brief order, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Manhattan judge's ruling to dismiss Eric Rasmusen's suit, finding that his allegations that Citigroup underpaid its taxes are in the public domain, and thus a whistleblower suit is not justified.
June 29, 2018 at 03:24 PM
2 minute read
The legal odyssey of an Indiana University economics professor-turned-whistleblower who tried to take on Citigroup in a $2.4 billion qui tam suit alleging that the bank improperly used a federal tax break to evade New York state taxes appears to be over. In a brief order, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Manhattan judge's ruling to dismiss Eric Rasmusen's suit, finding that his allegations that Citigroup underpaid its taxes are in the public domain, and thus a whistleblower suit is not justified. Justices David Friedman, Peter Tom, Angela Mazzarelli and Anil Singh joined in the ruling. Rasmusen claimed that Citigroup used the $45 million taxpayer-funded bailout package it received during the financial crisis to avoid paying $800 million for New York's franchise tax in 2010 and 2011. After the New York attorney general declined to take up the case, Rasmusen brought a qui tam suit alleging violations of the state's False Claims Act and seeking treble damages. Citigroup was represented by Davis Polk & Wardwell partner Edmund Polubinski III. The bank did not respond to a request for comment. Eugene Kim of the Law Offices Eugene H. Kim represented Rasmusen. In an email, Rasmusen said he was disappointed with the court's findings but said he would not pursue the case any further. “I was hoping that the court would address the point of law of whether Citigroup really does owe New York $800 million of state taxes, even if it dismissed my suit, because that would have put pressure on the state authorities to collect the money,” he said.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All‘Issue of First Impression’: New York Judge Clears Coinbase Appeal Amid Crypto Regulatory Clash
4 minute readMeet the Long Island Judge Tapped to Be US Attorney for Eastern District of New York
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Adapting to AI and the Needs of Lawyers Will Be Key For Shutts & Bowen, Says Incoming Ft. Lauderdale Leader
- 2What Qualities Will Distinguish Good from Great Service In 2025?
- 3The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
- 4Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
- 5Lawyer's Retirement Benefits Excluded From Marital Property
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