Recently named one of the Top 100 lawyers in California by the Daily Journal, Randy is a former federal prosecutor and accomplished trial lawyer who focuses his practice on conducting targeted and efficient internal investigations, representing clients in health care fraud and abuse matters, defending complex class actions and cases brought under the False Claims Act, representing Higher Education institutions in a wide variety of investigations and litigation matters, and defending white collar criminal cases.
As one of the up-and-coming rising stars of the white collar bar, Randy has reeled off a string of incredibly impressive defense verdicts and wins in some of the most high profile white collar cases in the Bay Area, including securing a complete “not guilty” verdict on all counts in February 2020 in the DOJ’s Fitbit/Jawbone criminal prosecution (United States v. Katherine Mogal), one of the most closely watched federal criminal trade secrets trials in California in recent memory (Randy delivered the closing argument at trial), and securing a complete dismissal with prejudice of all claims against UCSF Medical Center and eight individual defendants in a significant federal False Claims Act lawsuit brought in the Northern District of California alleging wide-ranging Medicare Fraud.
Randy has significant experience representing life sciences companies and hospitals in investigations and litigation matters involving allegations of health care fraud. Randy is currently co-leading the defense of a Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company in a federal Anti-Kickback lawsuit, and Randy has extensive experience representing the largest hospital system in California in a wide variety of litigation matters and investigations.
Randy also dedicates a substantial portion of his practice to handling matters for Higher Education institutions. Randy has become one of the go-to lawyers for the Regents of the University of California, handling some of its most sensitive and important investigations and disputes, including serving as co-lead counsel in nine class actions that were recently brought by students in federal and state courts throughout California seeking a return of tuition and student fees due to COVID-related school closures.
Randy is also a class action specialist and is co-leading the defense of a number of consumer class actions brought in federal courts throughout California, including two civil RICO class actions pending in the Eastern District of California and Central District of California.
Randy is undefeated in the nine cases that he has tried to verdict.
Almost a year into the new administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement released its annual report last week, providing a recap of the SEC’s enforcement results over the past 12 months, as well as some insight into its direction for the coming year. Overall, the report suggests that the SEC will increase its focus on addressing harm to “Main Street” investors and that pursuing individuals will continue to be the rule, not the exception.
During fiscal year 2017, the SEC pursued 754 enforcement actions, 446 of which were “stand-alone” actions (as opposed to “follow-on” actions which seek to bar executives from practicing before the Commission or to deregister public companies). This represents a drop from the prior year in which the SEC pursued 784 enforcement actions, 464 of which were stand-alone actions. The bulk of the Division’s 446 stand-alone actions in FY 2017 focused on issuer advisory issues, issuer reporting, auditing and accounting, securities offerings, and insider trading—all areas that saw a relatively similar number of cases in FY 2016. Actions involving public finance abuse represented the only significant decrease in the number of cases versus the prior year. In FY 2016, the SEC brought nearly 100 public finance abuse actions compared to fewer than 20 in FY 2017. READ MORE
Companies should take notice of a new fraud scheme that has been making the rounds, targeting businesses that regularly make wire transfers. Known as the “Business E-mail Compromise,” or BEC, this scam targets employees responsible for wiring money, instructing them under false pretenses to wire large sums to fraudulent accounts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the scam has claimed over 2,000 victims and resulted in losses totaling nearly $215 million since October 2013. In one version of the BEC fraud, the e-mail accounts of high-level business executives (CEO, CFO, CTO, etc.) are compromised by the creation of spoof e-mail addresses. The imposters then use the compromised executive’s e-mail account to send a request for a wire transfer to a second employee within the company who is responsible for processing such requests. This version of the scheme has been referred to as “CEO Fraud” or the “Business Executive Scam.” In another variation of the scam, businesses which have a long-standing relationship with a particular supplier or vendor (i.e. a landlord) receive a spoofed e-mail purportedly from that vendor directing the business to wire funds for invoice payment to an alternate, fraudulent account. This version of the scheme has been referred to as “The Bogus Invoice Scheme” or “The Supplier Swindle.”