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
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
