Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
New Complaint – Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
New Complaint – Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
New Complaint – Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
New Complaint – Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
New Complaint – Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al.
Atkins Investment Partnership, et al. v. EisnerAmper, LLP, et al. was filed in the Northern District of California on February 8, 2021, claiming civil damages from an auditor that allegedly aided and abetted its client’s Ponzi scheme by providing false audits. Specifically, the complaint alleges negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting securities fraud in violation of California Corporations Code section 25403.
U.S. Biometrics Laws Part II: What to Expect in 2021
As we discussed in Part I, the United States does not have a single, comprehensive federal law governing biometric data. However, we have recently seen an increasing number of states focusing on this issue. Part I summarized legislative activity on this issue in 2020. In this Part II, we discuss noteworthy legislation to monitor in 2021.
What to Expect in 2021
At least two states—New York and Maryland—have already introduced biometrics legislation in this first month of 2021.
New York – AB 27
On January 6, 2021, the New York Assembly introduced the Biometric Privacy Act (BPA), a New York state biometric law aimed at regulating businesses handling biometric data. BPA will prohibit businesses from collecting biometric identifiers or information without first receiving informed consent from the individual, prohibit profiting from the data, and will require a publicly available written retention and destruction policy. As proposed, the statute contains a private right of action; and if passed, it will permit consumers to sue businesses for improperly collecting and using their biometric data. The statute follows Illinois’s BIPA, allowing recovery of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater, along with attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief.
Reimbursement Consultant Could be Liable Under the FCA
The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a hospital reimbursement consultant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the consultant could be held liable under the FCA based on the theory that the consultant’s solicitations of fees-for-recommendations could be found to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”).
In United States ex rel. Graziosi v. R1 RCM
Department of Health and Human Services Announces Proposed Changes to the HIPAA Privacy Rule
On January 21, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed modifications to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH).
The proposed rule is part of HHS’ Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care, which seeks to promote value-based healthcare by examining federal regulations that impede efforts among healthcare providers and health plans to better coordinate care for patients. Specifically, HHS aims to amend the regulations implemented pursuant to HIPAA and HITECH where the rules present barriers to coordinated care and case management or where they otherwise impose burdens on covered entities that do not increase individuals’ privacy protections.
DOJ Accelerates Enforcement Efforts Against Cybercriminals Who Engage in Ransomware Attacks
![lock 0 [Converted]](https://blogs.mcguirewoods.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/829/2021/02/ransomware-ebanner-550x254.jpg)
On successive days last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) unveiled enforcement actions against international cybercriminal organizations that utilized ransomware to infect computer systems and then extort payment, often in the form of cryptocurrency, from victims worldwide. First, the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida announced the unsealing of charges against a Canadian national for his alleged involvement in the ransomware scheme known as NetWalker that generated tens of millions of dollars from businesses, public entities, and individuals whose computer databases were encrypted and rendered useless, pending satisfaction of a ransom demand. The following day, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of North Carolina and the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section revealed their participation in a multinational enforcement operation that disrupted and dismantled Emotet, a botnet that utilized malware, including ransomware, to target critical infrastructure in the United States and abroad. These actions highlight U.S. law enforcement’s increased focus on preventing ransomware attacks, which in the future will rely on both traditional collaboration among international law enforcement agencies and reporting from private entities over which the government exercises regulatory control.