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
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
Who’s on First to Get Life Insurance Proceeds
Post 5184
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyxQfnUz and at https://lnkd.in/gAd3wqWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Selena Sanchez, et al, No. 2:24-cv-03278-TLN-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (September 3, 2025) the USDC applied interpleader law.
Case Overview
This case involves an interpleader action brought by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Plaintiff-in-Interpleader) against Selena Sanchez and other defendants (Defendants-in-Interpleader).
Key Points
Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Application:
The Plaintiff-in-Interpleader...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182
It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.
Case Background:
This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...
Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.
On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive and became a consultant and expert witness for lawyers representing insurers and lawyers ...
APPRAISAL AWARD SETS AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM INSURER
Post 5180
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evidence-required-prove-breach-contract-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-rfelc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence
In Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 01-23-00844-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025) Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy with Homeowners of ...
