Secretariat’s Antitrust team plays a vital role in supporting expert witness Dr. Kinshuk Jerath’s testimony on behalf of the successful U.S. Plaintiffs in this landmark decision.
In this week’s landmark United States v. Google decision, Secretariat’s Antitrust team, led by Managing Director Dr. Keith Waehrer, supported the analysis and work of expert witness Dr. Kinshuk Jerath, on behalf of the successful U.S. plaintiffs.
Dr. Jerath’s analysis and testimony centered on topics related to advertising markets and Google’s anticompetitive behavior and dominance in the text advertising market in particular. Judge Amit Mehta’s decision made particular note of Dr. Jerath’s testimony, citing that “The marketing funnel is neither ‘dead’ nor had it become ‘obsolete’ because of the emergence of digital marketing and new ad technologies,” and industry professionals “… continue to use the funnel to shape marketing strategies, even on digital platforms.”
Dr. Jerath is the Arthur F. Burns Professor of Free & Competitive Enterprise & Advisor in Digital Marketing at the Columbia Business School, Media and Technology Program. Secretariat’s team included John Gale, Trevor Larner, Josh Higham, and Ty Ehuan.
Richard Brady, Aminta Raffalovich, Steven Schwartz, and Jennifer Vanderhart authored a chapter in The Guide to Damages in International Arbitration – Sixth Edition. The guide is designed to assist the global arbitration community in understanding damages issues. The chapter is titled “The Use of Econometric and Statistical Analysis in Damages.”
The full guide is available online here.
Managing Directors Stuart Dekker, Joe Skilton, and Eddie Tobis authored the chapter “Compensation for Expropriation” in the 9th Edition of The Investment Treaty Arbitration Review.
Managing Director Matt Farber provided trial testimony on behalf of SVV in patent litigation involving the infringement of patents covering optical film.
Secretariat was retained by Katz PLLC on behalf of SVV in patent litigation alleging monitors sold by various companies, including Acer, infringed patents covering an optical film. Dr. Farber and Katz PLLC worked with Caldwell Cassady & Curry in the trial phase of the matter. At the conclusion of the trial, the Western District of Texas jury found the asserted patent claims to be valid and infringed, and that Acer owed SVV $10,306,900 in damages, an amount based on Dr. Farber’s opinions.
Dr. Farber submitted an extensive report in October and testified at trial to his analysis and opinions regarding a reasonable royalty. Dr. Farber’s work was supported by Matt Fitzgerald, Alex Gisquet, and Jack Schwartz.
The patents involved are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,838,135; 8,740,397; 10,797,191; and 10,868,205. The case is SVV Technology Innovations Inc. v. Acer Inc., case number 6:22-cv-00640, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Law360 and Bloomberg Law (subscriptions may be required) coverage may be found here and here.
Related: “SVV Technologies Awarded $22.4 Million in Another Patent Infringement Verdict”
Nine Secretariat intellectual property experts have been recognized as leading patent litigation expert witnesses in the eleventh edition of the IAM Patent 1000.
- Bruce Blacker, appearing for the second consecutive year, is a “seasoned testifier in both US and international arenas.” The publication further notes that he is a “smart choice” referencing his “recent work including assessing reasonable royalty damages for Orange Electric Co Ltd [link] in a patent infringement case for which his exact testifying amount was awarded.”
- Richard Brady is an “economic analysis guru” noted for “providing critical testimony in high-pressure litigation, particularly regarding healthcare-related intellectual property.” He is included for the fifth time.
- Carrie Distler is recognized by the publication, which notes that she has “a deep understanding of the case law” and approaches her assignments with “enthusiasm and commitment.”
- Richard Manning appears for the second consecutive year. He is acknowledged as someone “whose experience as an economist for biopharmaceutical companies proves vital to assessing the real-world challenges to and value of his clients’ intellectual property.”
- Nisha Mody, recognized for the third year in a row, is renowned for her “prowess in economic analysis testimony.” IAM noted that her expertise “has led her to be retained in almost 100 matters.”
- Aminta Raffalovich is recognized for her expertise in “technology and innovations economics” and her work on a multi-billion-dollar patent litigation case. IAM also commented that Ms. Raffalovich “can be called on for injunctive relief analysis.”
- Steve Schwartz, who received the recognition for the fourth time, “has notched up three decades in the field, making him a smart choice for a range of economic analysis, including lost profits, commercial success and reasonable royalties.”
- Ryan Sullivan is recognized for the eleventh straight year. The listing highlighted that he “is a go-to in high-stakes litigation, offering market analysis and economic benefit evaluations, as well as assessing damages. Recent work of his includes a case for VLSI Technology in which his testimony was the basis for an award of $2.175 billion.”
- Jennifer Vanderhart made her debut on the list this year. The publication included a testimonial that she “is exceptional. She becomes intimately familiar with the financial details in every case she takes on. She is an excellent communicator and she is efficient.”
In its firm profile, IAM notes: “Living up to its name, Intensity [now known as Secretariat] comes highly recommended for the deep engagement and tailored expertise it brings to every case, with its professionals working together to provide creative and accurate solutions and testimony for their clientele.”
The IAM Patent 1000 is regarded as the definitive “go-to” resource identifying the world’s leading expert witnesses and professionals with world-class, private practice patent expertise. IAM’s extensive research process includes more than 1,800 interviews with industry specialists around the world. Only those identified by market sources for their exceptional skillsets and profound insights into patent matters feature in the IAM Patent 1000.
IAM’s full research and rankings can be found here.
Jéssica Dutra and Pablo Varas were contributors to the recently published “2023 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments” from ABA Antitrust Law Section. For over 40 years, the publication and its annual supplements have been recognized as the most authoritative and comprehensive research tools for antitrust practitioners. The 2023 Edition summarizes developments during 2023 in the courts, at the agencies, and in Congress.
By Mona Birjandi and Matt Farber
This article first appeared on Law360 on May 14, 2023.
On March 26, the container ship Dali lost power and crashed into a support pylon, causing the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore to collapse into the Patapsco River and resulting in the deaths of six people.
Consequently, the city of Baltimore is preparing for litigation related to the bridge collapse, which is expected to include claims for economic and environmental damages.[1]
Quantifying damages in civil cases such as this one — and cases in intellectual property, breach of contract, private antitrust, class certification and class actions, personal injury, and product liability matters — is a complex task.
This article introduces the concept of an economic clerkship program as a solution to integrate early-career economists into the judiciary system. It explores how these economic clerks, working alongside legal professionals, can provide essential economic support to enhance judicial decision making.
As courts handle detailed economic analyses, the proposed economic clerkship program could not only advance economists’ careers, but also improve the understanding and accuracy of legal outcomes, similar to the way legal clerkships do.
Quantification of Damages
Civil filings that involve the quantification of damages comprise a large number of matters brought before U.S. judges. As mentioned, these matters include IP infringement, breach of contract, private antitrust, class actions, personal injury matters and product liability matters, among others.
Complex Economic and Statistical Techniques
Complex statistical and economic methods are used to quantify damages in these types of matters. Examples of such analyses used currently include choice-based conjoint surveys, event study analyses and hedonic regressions.[2] Future analyses may include the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence, or the design of A/B experiments to determine a proper damages figure.[3]
Complex Data
Today’s legal cases that involve damages rely heavily on vast amounts of complex data. This data sometimes arrives in unstructured formats — e.g., texts — and is generated in unprecedented volumes.
Processing this type of data requires advanced analytical skills to derive meaningful and reliable insights. The same dataset can yield contrasting outcomes based on how it is analyzed by different parties conducting economic analyses.
A Potential Solution
Tasked with making impactful decisions regarding motions and case outcomes in matters involving damages analyses, courts may benefit from economic clerks who help them to understand the analyses and data in depth and make fully informed decisions.
We propose an economic clerkship system in which early-career economists, or other staff supporting economic or damages experts opining on damages, spend a period of time as a clerk in U.S. district courts and other courts that see a high share of damages-related matters.
The Proven Value of Law Clerks
Law clerks have been a vital part of the judiciary for more than a century. Presently, early-career lawyers, often immediately out of law school, compete for clerkships at a variety of federal and state courts.[4] The benefits of law clerkships include, but are not limited to, the following.
Judicial Support
The benefits to judges and the court largely revolve around having talented and enthusiastic labor to help perform myriad duties. During these clerkships, these young lawyers conduct legal research, prepare bench memos, draft and proofread orders and opinions, verify citations, communicate with counsel, and assist the judge during courtroom proceedings.[5]
Legal Exposure and Networking
The benefits to the law clerks are also numerous. They see a wide variety of legal cases behind the scenes with differing legal and procedural issues; improve their research and writing; are exposed to a variety of legal skills, strategies and techniques; and build their attorney network.[6]
In the next section, we discuss how there would be similar benefits to both sides in an economic clerkship program.
How Courts Would Benefit From Economic Clerks
Courts might need economic clerks for several reasons.
Specialized Knowledge
Having an economic clerk on staff would provide deeper insight and specialized knowledge for important rulings that are highly impactful on both the case and experts’ careers, such as Daubert motion rulings, summary judgment rulings and motion in limine rulings. These motions, written by attorneys representing the parties, may take a partial view of the analyses, and to rule properly, the judge must develop an independent understanding of the analyses performed on both sides.
Data Interpretation
As noted, today’s legal cases increasingly rely on vast amounts of complex data. Different parties may interpret the same data differently, potentially leading to contrasting outcomes.
Economic clerks can play a crucial role in this context by leveraging their expertise to interpret and analyze such data effectively, making complex economic concepts more accessible to judges, juries and legal teams.
Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration
Economic clerks could facilitate collaboration between legal and economic experts. Working together, the economic clerk and the law clerks could determine the analyses performed, the assumptions and inputs that go into those analyses, and how they interact with the relevant legal precedents. The judge would also have an additional resource available during hearings on such motions to better comprehend the arguments being made on both sides. An economic clerk would be able to digest the analyses performed by both the parties’ damages experts, and delineate the inputs and assumptions that differ, along with the impact of those differences. Such an analysis could be helpful for the court to understand whether settlement is a possibility, and the barriers to settlement that might exist as they relate to the parties’ damages analyses.
Decision Support
Lastly, these benefits would extend directly to bench trials, in which the judge is tasked with determining the proper damages amount should liability be found.
An economic clerk could be an additional resource for the judge and law clerks to determine which aspects of the parties’ damages analyses are appropriate and best fit the facts of the case as part of a damages determination.
The economic clerk could highlight issues with either analysis, and explain how such issues may affect damages figures. These insights could inform judicial decisions, especially in cases where economic factors play a significant role.
How Economists Would Benefit From Clerkships
An economic clerkship can be an invaluable experience that provides great training and opportunity for growth for all economists involved in litigation, regardless of practice area. Some of the benefits to economists include, but are not limited to, the following.
Analytical Exposure and Learning
Much like early-career lawyers, an economic clerkship would likely be a boon to an early-career economist’s future prospects. They would see a variety of analyses presented under a variety of damages-related matters in IP cases, personal injury cases, product liability cases and others.
For each of those, they would get a behind-the-scenes look at how the court reviews such analyses, including the various components, such as reports, different attachments and exhibits, depositions, and motions.
Economic clerks would work hand-in-hand with law clerks, developing an understanding of how legal precedent and the various economic analyses interact to produce certain outcomes. This would improve their own exposition and analyses in the future.
Networking
Economic clerks would be exposed to attorneys and damages experts, join a clerkship family of past and future clerks, and develop networks that could prove to be beneficial in the future as they develop their own expert careers.
Public Service
Clerking is a public service. Spending a year serving the public could start a service-oriented career for economists.
Conclusion
While not all U.S. courts may require the use of a full-time economic clerk or two, as discussed above, there would certainly be numerous benefits for the courts that see the highest flow of matters that involve the computation of damages.
These benefits would improve outcomes, allowing judges to make more informed rulings on motions and within bench trials. Because of the benefits for the economic clerks early in their careers, economists would likely compete for such positions much like young lawyers do now.
Thus, such an arrangement would benefit both parties, as well as the legal system at large.
Mona Birjandi is a Senior Economist at Data for Decisions LLC.
Matt Farber is a Managing Director at Secretariat Advisors LLC.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[2] https://www.law360.com/articles/1593785/how-willingness-to-pay-informs-damages-methodology; https://willamette.com/insights_journal/18/special_2018_7.pdf; https://www.law360.com/articles/1379763.
[4] https://law.utexas.edu/judicial-clerkships/types/.
[5] https://oscar.uscourts.gov/duties_of_federal_law_clerks.
[6] https://law.utexas.edu/judicial-clerkships/.
By Richard Manning and Fred Selck
A new class of anti-obesity medications (AOMs) called GLP-1s have been shown to be highly effective at helping people lose weight. Given the efficacy of GLP-1s, and the significant long-term costs associated with treating obesity and its related diseases, there is increasing pressure on public and private health insurers to cover AOMs. This white paper by Richard Manning and Fred Selck finds that when current state market dynamics and assumptions are included in precise financial analytics, treating obesity does not present the threat to Medicare’s financial solvency that other recently published analyses suggest.
Economic analysis performed by Dr. Anup Malani and the Secretariat team demonstrates that a preliminary injunction is warranted.
Natera, Inc., which specializes in cell-free DNA testing technology, sought a preliminary injunction against competitor NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (“NeoGenomics”). Revolutionary cell-free DNA detection methods have the potential to detect cancer prior to conventional diagnostic methods, and thereby have the potential to significantly improve patient outcomes. Secretariat* and attorneys at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan presented a comprehensive analysis in support of a preliminary injunction on NeoGenomics’s RaDaR product.
After considering Secretariat’s analysis and the legal arguments of Natera’s attorneys, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Diane Caldwell Eagles granted Natera a preliminary injunction.
For a preliminary injunction to be granted, the patent holder must demonstrate that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, (3) the balance of hardships favors the patent holder, and (4) whether an injunction is in the public interest. Secretariat evaluated factors 2, 3, and 4.
For irreparable harm (factor 2), Secretariat evaluated harms that Natera would face in the absence of a preliminary injunction and whether those harms were quantifiable and compensable via an award of damages. Secretariat’s analysis involved evaluation of the complex and unique dynamics of the marketplace in which RaDaR and Natera’s Signatera product compete, first-mover advantages, the competitive relationship between the parties, and the nexus between the alleged infringement and the harms faced. Based on the analysis performed, Secretariat determined that Natera would face irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction and that remedies under the law were insufficient to compensate Natera for the irreparable harm. Judge Eagles agreed, noting that “Natera is substantially likely to suffer irreparable harm from NeoGenomics’s ongoing infringement[.]”
For the balance of harms (factor 3), Secretariat evaluated the harm Natera would face in the absence of a preliminary injunction relative to the harm NeoGenomics would face if an injunction were granted. Secretariat determined that the balance of harms favored Natera. Judge Eagles agreed, noting that “[t]he harm to Natera if a preliminary injunction is not granted outweighs the harm to NeoGenomics in granting the injunction.” Judge Eagles went on to note that “Signatera has been on the market longer and is predicted to be a major contributor to Natera’s future success. In comparison, RaDaR is relatively new to the market and is not a major product in NeoGenomics’ portfolio. Natera’s projected revenue streams and dependence on Signatera tips the balance of equities in favor of granting the preliminary injunction.”
For the public interest (factor 4), Secretariat evaluated if a preliminary injunction would harm patients and if there were alternative treatment options available to patients should the injunction be granted. Secretariat determined that protection of intellectual property rights outweighed any potential harm caused by an injunction on RaDaR, in large part because Natera’s competing product, Signatera, could be substituted in place of RaDaR. Judge Eagles agreed, noting that “[t]he public interest in enforcing patent rights tips in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. Anyone in need of a tumor informed MRD test will be able to get one from Natera; Signatera is clinically validated for use with the same cancers as RaDaR.”
NeoGenomics was allowed to continue using RaDaR in patients already using RaDaR, in support of research and development on projects or studies that began before the entry of the injunction, and in clinical trials in process or already approved by an agency in the United States.
Dr. Malani was supported by Vice President Dr. Anushree Subramaniam, Managing Director Dr. Matt Farber, Director Kristyn Berretta, Senior Associate Eric Dragon, Senior Associate Isaiah Kline, and Senior Associate Judson Potenza.
A link to the Order granting the preliminary injunction (subscription may be required) is available here.
The preliminary injunction in this matter follows a permanent injunction in the Natera v. ArcherDx matter where Secretariat provided comprehensive economic analysis relating to the appropriateness of a permanent injunction. Coverage of the Natera v. ArcherDx matter is available here.
*Work was performed by team members at Intensity LLC. Intensity is part of Secretariat.
We are pleased to announce the promotion of four individuals to the role of Managing Director: Stuart Allan, Bryan D’Aguiar, Matt Farber, and Ryan Marsh.
According to Managing Director Don Harvey, “Earning the title of Managing Director is a demonstration of high-quality work, leading through challenging situations, and earning clients’ trust. It requires a commitment to developing best-in-class expertise and sharing it with our professionals so we nurture the next generation of talent. I am incredibly proud to call Stuart, Bryan, Matt, and Ryan my colleagues, and I wish them continued success.”
Learn more about our new Managing Directors.
Stuart Allan | Dubai
Stuart Allan is a qualified quantity surveyor and a RICS Accredited Expert Witness with more than 15 years of international experience in construction and engineering. He has acted as quantum expert and as lead assistant to the appointed quantum expert on complex domestic and international construction and engineering projects, including the valuation of claims for damages in several jurisdictions, as well as variations under standard and bespoke forms of contract, disruption, and acceleration. He is also experienced in final accounts, remeasurement, and quantity surveying principles. His experience has been gained across various sectors and has included projects in the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Algeria, and South Africa.
Bryan D’Aguiar | Washington, DC
Bryan D’Aguiar leads damages and forensic investigations engagements with his financial and valuation insights and analysis drawn from more than 20 years of worldwide experience. He has provided expert evidence on valuation and damages in several international cases and arbitrations, and he applies his analytical and institutional investing experience in emerging and frontier markets. With a deep understanding of the competitive and business environment in almost 60 countries, he conducts research and valuations across multiple sectors. He has helped institutional investors invest in these markets using various structures, and his work has won numerous awards for high returns through market-leading strategies.
Matt Farber, PhD | Dallas
Dr. Matt Farber applies his deep knowledge of microeconomic theory and data analysis techniques to antitrust, intellectual property, patent infringement, trademark infringement, trade secrets, breach of contract, and false advertising matters. He regularly works in state courts, U.S. district courts, and the International Trade Commission. He has testified in U.S. district court, and provided analyses of monopolization and attempted monopolization, lost profits and reasonable royalty damages, unjust enrichment, irreparable economic injury, domestic industry considerations, and commercial success.
Ryan Marsh, PhD | Dallas
Dr. Ryan Marsh has expertise in labor economics, applied microeconomics, and applied econometrics. He applies his expertise to various complex commercial disputes, including intellectual property, breach of contract, false advertising, and antitrust disputes. He has worked across various industries, including biopharmaceuticals, medical devices, telecommunications, consumer electronics, automobiles, and petroleum, among others. Ryan has been designated an expert on matters before state courts and U.S. district court, and he has provided testimony in a matter before U.S. district court.
At the American Bar Association White Collar Crime conference held in San Francisco from March 6 to 8, 2024, senior DOJ, SEC and CFTC officials provided important announcements and updates regarding their respective enforcement priorities and initiatives. Highlights include the following:
Whistleblowers. In her keynote address, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced a new policy (to be codified in the DOJ Manual) to reward whistleblowers who report potential criminal conduct. One likely fact pattern will involve buyers who discover potential misconduct post-closing. The policy will apply only in bona fide, arm’s-length transactions. The new policy is designed to provide assurance to acquirors who were not involved in the alleged wrongdoing, as it occurred prior to their purchase of the target company.
More generally, DAG Monaco announced that DOJ is commencing a “90-day sprint” to announce a pilot whistleblower program, which will closely resemble existing programs at the SEC and CFTC. The policy provides that for a whistleblower to be eligible to receive an award (as a percentage of a forfeiture), the disclosure must involve conduct previously unknown to DOJ (i.e., the whistleblower must be “first in the door”), and will be payable only if and after victims of the crime have been fully compensated. Unlike the SEC’s whistleblower program, whistleblowers who were involved in the wrongdoing will not be eligible for a recovery. Moreover, whistleblowers under the DOJ program will only be available to obtain a recovery if they aren’t eligible for recoveries under other federal programs (including, for example, DOJ’s qui tam program under the False Claims Act, or the SEC or CFTC whistleblower programs).
DAG Monaco explained that the new policy is designed to incentivize companies to strengthen their internal compliance programs. She explained that companies are much better positioned to obtain a favorable outcome “if you knock on our door before we knock on yours.” She anticipates that primary categories of wrongdoing to which the new policy will apply include bribery & corruption, financial crimes, and domestic bribery.
DOJ publicized the new initiative the day after DAG Monaco’s address.
Recidivism. A panel discussion involving senior DOJ, SEC and CFTC officials examined the issue of corporate recidivism. DOJ and the SEC have adopted new measures involving companies, not individuals, who repeatedly commit offenses. Under DOJ’s new policy, the same factors will be applied as those in effect for individuals: namely, that successive or consecutive deferred prosecution agreements will be strongly disfavored, and that a company’s entire criminal, civil and regulatory history will be considered in determining a resolution. Relevant factors will include the following:
- Prior misconduct involves criminal resolutions in the United States, as well as prior wrongdoing involving the same personnel or management as the current misconduct.
- Dated misconduct (occurring 10 years or more prior to the current event) will generally be accorded less weight.
- The nature and circumstances of the prior misconduct, including whether it shared the same root causes as the present misconduct. Some facts might indicate broader weaknesses in a company’s compliance culture or practices, such as wrongdoing that occurred under the same management team or executive leadership.
- For companies in highly regulated industries, whether the alleged wrongdoing is an outlier, or a more common occurrence among competitors.
SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir Grewal stated that the SEC is uniquely focused on the recidivism issue. He acknowledged that larger public companies, due to their size and geographic reach, will have a greater likelihood of repeat offenses, and that the SEC’s consideration of recidivists will include an examination of different types of misconduct – i.e., those that are technical violations of federal securities laws versus those that are more substantive. He emphasized that transparency and trust are the hallmarks of the SEC’s approach to recidivists – i.e., that there is no separate, more lenient set of rules for larger, more powerful companies.
On the issue of penalties, Director Grewal stated that the SEC has an array of tools to use in sanctioning recidivists. These include higher, more severe financial penalties; officer and director bars; and requiring corporate undertakings – including the appointment of compliance monitors or consultants. He stated also that the SEC will place increased emphasis on admissions of wrongdoing in matters involving recidivists.
Ian McGinley, the Director of Enforcement at the CFTC, summarized the Commission’s September 2023 guidance on factors to be considered when determining penalties for repeat corporate offenders. These include: (i) the nature/root causes of the misconduct; (ii) whether the repeat misconduct occurred under the same management team; (iii) the timeframe between offenses; and (iv) the extent and effectiveness of remedial action taken by the company after the initial offense. He stated that the CFTC’s range of penalties for corporate recidivists are largely the same as the SEC’s. He also noted that CFTC policy is to recommend the appointment of an independent monitor or consultant in recidivist cases.
Compensation / Clawbacks. DAG Monaco also emphasized DOJ’s continuing focus on holding individual wrongdoers accountable, including by demanding clawbacks (of compensation or proceeds of wrongdoing) as part of a resolution. She emphasized that DOJ’s policies regarding voluntary self-disclosure, by individuals and companies, are designed “to make the math easy” – i.e., that a voluntary disclosure will always lead to a better outcome, including possibly no requirement for a guilty plea. She emphasized that all of DOJ’s white-collar policies are designed to incentivize companies to invest in and actively manage their compliance programs – as, in her words, “the cost of compliance will be much less than the cost of a second violation.”
In sum, there was a uniformity of messages from the nation’s regulators of the capital markets and prosecutors of corporate / financial crimes: a greater emphasis on individual accountability, less tolerance of corporate recidivism, and more active encouragement of voluntary self-disclosure and whistleblowing. The underlying message is that investments by companies in risk assessments and compliance programs can reap significant benefits if wrongdoing occurs.
Secretariat Advisors is a leading provider of investigative, compliance, risk assessment, and testimonial services in matters involving white-collar crime and regulatory compliance. Please contact our experts if we may be of assistance.
Today, Secretariat, the global disputes, economics, and expert witness advisory firm, welcomes leading forensic accounting and internal investigations expert Edward Westerman to the firm as Managing Director. Based in San Francisco, Westerman will help drive the strategic expansion of Secretariat’s global Investigations practice, which includes consulting and expert services that address complex business challenges in financial and accounting disputes, governmental and regulatory inquiries, and financial crimes.
In a career spanning more than 25 years, Westerman has earned a stellar reputation as a trusted advisor to legal counsel and boards of directors when handling high-stakes internal investigations and addressing “bet the company” situations. He is regularly retained in connection with investigations involving SEC and DOJ government inquiries, whistleblower allegations concerning accounting and financial reporting fraud, misappropriation of intellectual property and other assets, merger and acquisition fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations, and public corruption.
“When companies and their counsel are confronted with extraordinary situations that put their reputations and future success on the line, few names are trusted like Ed Westerman,” says Secretariat Managing Director Don Harvey. “Ed’s experience and leadership are second to none when it comes to addressing a broad array of internal investigations. He is exactly the right person to help lead the charge as we grow our team and capabilities in these crucial areas.”
Westerman’s arrival closely follows the addition of senior investigations and regulatory advisory teams based in Dubai, London, and Chicago. He will now help Secretariat expand its global investigations service offerings in key industry verticals, including healthcare, financial services, and technology, as well as develop new services to address areas such as cybersecurity, sanctions, and business intelligence.
“The regulatory risks that organizations and their leaders face today demand swift and precise responses. Secretariat’s experts have built a reputation for quality in helping clients navigate critical situations with integrity and independence,” says Westerman. “I am excited to build upon the investigative capabilities of the firm and be a part of this impressive growth story.”
Before joining Secretariat, Westerman held investigations leadership roles at FTI Consulting. In addition to his role serving outside counsel and boards of directors, he has served in various forensic engagements as an arbiter, court appointed special master, and third-party neutral.
About Secretariat
Secretariat experts are trusted in the highest-stakes legal, risk, and regulatory matters around the world. With more than 500 professionals located in key commercial and arbitration centers, renowned law firms, leading corporations, and influential institutions rely on our disputes, economics, forensics, and data analytics expertise to answer complex business and legal challenges with clarity and confidence. Learn more at www.secretariat-intl.com.
Media Contact:
Nathan Jenks
+1 773 220 8896
njenks@secretariat-intl.com