1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |NY State AG Targets Private Equity for Tax Related FCA Violations

NY State AG Targets Private Equity for Tax Related FCA Violations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.17

On April 18, the New York Attorney General’s Office announced a $40 million settlement with a hedge fund under the state’s False Claims Act, arising out of whistleblower allegations that members of the fund’s investment manager failed to pay millions in New York State tax on performance income for several years. According to the AG, the settlement reflects “the largest tax-related recovery by the Attorney General’s office resulting from an action filed under the New York False Claims Act.” As firms evaluate their exposure to state-level FCA claims, it is worth noting that the state’s FCA was amended several years ago to cover tax claims, in a bill sponsored by the current AG.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights