• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Media Companies Push for Free Speech in Robert Wone Civil Case | Main | The Morning Wrap »

November 03, 2010



My former employer moved $360mil unrecognized expenses from continued operation to discontinued. Discontinued operations are few companies (entities), which were open and then in few months closed. By doing this company showed profit in continued operation, where is did not belong. They balanced out on corporate consolidated level such accounts like Intercompany income/expenses, other income, unknown $40mil and other. In a few months they debited accrued expenses and credited Intercompany Income/Expenses account. By moving $40 mil from Balance Sheet to P&L they simply busted income. It was a small part of everything, which Director of Finance and other company officer did.
I filed complaint with internal SOX compliance officer and was sent home and after that terminated.
Before I was terminated I met with SEC, Los Angeles office. 4 SEC employees and myself spent about 3 hours together, reviewing transactions, which I brought them. SEC found even more frauds then I thought. They were very interested.
My company found out about my SEC visit and hired some attorney, who made “audit” and then it was presented to SEC.
After I was terminated and have not heard back from SEC, I called FBI and met with them. FBI confirmed that it was a fraud. They contacted SEC. After that I got call from FBI. They mentioned communication with SEC and said that they cannot do anything.
Soon I read letter from my company’s attorney in which she stated that all people who I reported in my complaint participated and facilitated this audit.
I contacted new SEC department in Washington. I sent them documents and Journal Entries I had. They were extremely interested. They asked me who I was communicating in SEC Los Angeles office. I gave them names. And then happened the same thing. They lost interest and did not answer my calls.

My questions are:
What is in the audit that it became shield for obvious fraud?
What should I do to bring government attention to this case?
How to make somebody interested just to review documents I have?
Does anybody want to know? If yes, who are these people?

Daniel Haszard

Glaxo whistle-blower gets $96 million.

The case with the Zyprexa scandal is that Eli Lilly drug company pleaded guilty to criminal wrongs ("viva Zyprexa" campaign) the Zyprexa saga was rotten through and through.
Eight Lilly EMPLOYEES got millions each as supposed informant 'whistle blowers'.Lawyers on BOTH sides got millions and millions......most patient claimants who got sick are 'mentally challenged' and less able to advocate for themselves.
The Class action Lawsuits in the US had payouts of $85,000 BUT the lawyers got 45 percent and then the govt got most of the rest for having to take care of the victim/patients medical expenses.Soooo,,,,$85K turned into about $9,000 for Zyprexa claimants many had their food stamps and other state benefits taken away because of their *windfall profit* making them worse off in the end.
Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim activist and patient who got diabetes from it.


If the internal mechanisms are functioning properly the conduct will be disclosed anyhow. If its not, or its covered up, this new law almost guarantees the conduct will see the light of day. A byproduct is that it will force companies to take internal controls more seriously. Trying to overturn it would be a mistake for all concerned except a wrongdoer.


I think instead, the gov't should pay for the cost of litigation, since in my district (9th cir see STONER v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION) a pro-se cannot bring forth a qui-tam or whistle-blower action, thus chilling any such action by the whistle-blower and possibly their attorney from making such a claim. The cost of retaining an attorney is a bar to many and if the action is brought in good faith by the whistle-blower, it should be incumbent upon the gov't to provide for the costs of such atty, not just on a winner-take-all basis.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad