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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
