Conviction of Wire Fraud Requires Defendant to Repay Funds Advanced by Employer and Insurers
Post 4852
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g8PBeMWc, shttps://lnkd.in/g8PBeMWc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Defendant Dr. W. Scott Harkonen was the Chief Executive Officer of InterMune, Inc. (“InterMune” or the “Company”). Following the issuance of a misleading press release in 2002, Dr. Harkonen became a criminal defendant. To fund his sophisticated and well-resourced defense, Dr. Harkonen requested and accepted very sizeable advancements from the Company that funded the advancements via several director and officer (“D&O”) insurance policies and from its own coffers. The advanced sums were subject to repayment if the litigation was found to be non-indemnifiable. A federal jury subsequently convicted Dr. Harkonen of felony wire fraud in 2009. Dr. Harkonen then embarked on nearly a decade of unsuccessful appeals to overturn that conviction.
In Intermune, Inc. and Roche Holdings, Inc. v. W. Scott Harkonen, M.D., C. A. No. 2021-0694-NAC, Court of Chancery of Delaware (August 1, 2024) multiple motions were considered and resolved by the Court.
In light of the wire fraud conviction, two of the Company’s excess D&O insurance providers demanded that InterMune and Dr. Harkonen repay the sums advanced to Dr. Harkonen to litigate the wire fraud charge. In 2019, InterMune and Dr. Harkonen settled with the two insurers. InterMune paid the settlements in full and retained its right to sue Dr. Harkonen for recovery. InterMune exercised that right with this litigation.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2000, the Company and Dr. Harkonen entered into an indemnity agreement (the “Indemnity Agreement”), whereby the Company “agree[d] to hold harmless and indemnify [Dr. Harkonen] to the fullest extent authorized or permitted by the provisions of the Bylaws and the [DGCL.]” Dr. Harkonen executed an agreement to repay the amounts incurred in his defense “if it shall be determined ultimately that [he] is not entitled to be indemnified under the provisions of this Agreement, the Bylaws, the [DGCL] or otherwise.”
Prosecution and Insurance Policies
On March 18, 2008, a grand jury indicted Dr. Harkonen “for fraudulently promoting . . . Actimmune (interferon gamma-1b) by putting out false and misleading information about the drug’s effectiveness in treating [IPF].” Dr. Harkonen was indicted on one count of felony misbranding and one count of felony wire fraud.
The cost of litigating Dr. Harkonen’s charges with a large and prestigious legal team was substantial and depleted the burning limits of the D&O policies.
On September 29, 2009, regardless of the efforts of his high priced lawyers, following a six-week trial and four days of jury deliberation, the jury acquitted Dr. Harkonen of the misbranding charge but found him guilty of felony wire fraud.
Reining In Fees
On December 13, 2011, the Company and Dr. Harkonen entered into a settlement agreement (the “2011 Settlement Agreement”) to address the Company’s obligation to advance Dr. Harkonen’s legal expenses. In the 2011 Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to pay almost $2 million of Dr. Harkonen’s outstanding legal expenses.
More Federal Court Litigation
On May 16, 2011, Dr. Harkonen unsuccessfully appealed his wire fraud conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Medical Board of California Disciplinary Action
Dr. Harkonen’s wire fraud conviction also had professional ramifications. Dr. Harkonen did not fulfill the terms of disciplinary action and remains unlicensed, and his medical license has been canceled.
This Litigation
The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Company (the “Summary Judgment Opinion”), holding that although he received a Presidential Pardon from President Biden, the Pardon did not render Dr. Harkonen’s wire fraud litigation successful on the merits or otherwise for purposes of indemnification Delaware law. Dr. Harkonen had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the conviction through the appellate process.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The corporation, rather than the employee, bears the burden of proof in an advancement claw-back action. The Bylaws provide that “the corporation shall indemnify its directors and officers to the fullest extent not prohibited by the DGCL or any other applicable law[.]”
D&O Settlement Indemnification
Dr. Harkonen is precluded from establishing good faith because his wire fraud conviction is conclusive evidence that he acted in bad faith.
Dr. Harkonen was convicted of felony wire fraud. Accordingly, Dr. Harkonen was found to have acted in bad faith.
VERDICT
Dr. Harkonen must repay the Company the $5,906,927.02 it seeks in this action as repayment of advanced sums for which Dr. Harkonen is not entitled to indemnification. Dr. Harkonen voluntarily demanded their payment and gave the Undertaking to repay.
CONCLUSION
Dr. Harkonen is ultimately responsible for those legal expenses incurred in litigating his wire fraud conviction.
ZALMA OPINION
This case is an example of an abuse of a corporation’s obligation to pay to defend its CEO. The corporation and its insurers paid almost six million dollars to defend Dr. Harkonen to claims of wire fraud and tried to even obtain money from the corporation when he sought, and received, a Presidential pardon. His guilt did not go away with the Pardon and he must now repay the corporation almost $6 million plus interest. Dr. Harkonen was a criminal who took advantage of the by-laws of the corporation, the Directors and Officers insurance policies and every court with whom he was involved. I expect him to appeal this ruling as well as he continues an effort to abuse the corporation he led and the law.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg, Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
