False Claims

Subscribe to False Claims via RSS

On June 17, 2024, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the latest settlement under its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative (“CCFI”) (previously discussed here).[1] The settlement resulted in a total of $11,300,000 in payments from two consulting companies (Guidehouse, Inc., the prime contractor, which paid $7,600,000; and Nan Kay and Associates, the subcontractor, which paid $3,700,000) to resolve allegations the two companies violated the False Claims Act by failing to meet cybersecurity requirements in federally-funded contracts.Continue Reading Latest Cyber-Related FCA Settlement Underscores the Breadth of DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Focus

Companies regularly are required to interpret ambiguous and vague regulatory provisions. Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of consolidated cases to determine whether a defendant’s subjective interpretation of an ambiguous regulation is relevant to determining the knowledge (or scienter) element of the False Claims Act or, as the Seventh Circuit held in the case below, that once a defendant can articulate an objectively reasonable interpretation its contemporaneously held subjective belief is irrelevant to the knowledge inquiry. The issue is a significant one for both the government and relators on one side, and potential defendants on the other, as False Claims Act (FCA) liability imposes treble damages and penalties exceeding $20,000 per claim as well as relators’ attorneys’ fees and costs.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Arguments on False Claims Act Scienter Standard

A federal court filing by a fintech company revealed that it has been under investigation by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in relation to its Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan approval practices for over a year. This rare disclosure of a pre-indictment DOJ investigation warns that the government is refocusing enforcement efforts to the fintechs and financial institutions that administered PPP loans.Continue Reading Court Filing Reveals that DOJ Is Investigating Fintech’s Administration of PPP Loans

On June 21, 2022 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 17 F.4th 376 (3d Cir. 2021), allowing the Court to review the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) authority to dismiss qui tam suits brought under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), over objections by the relators. The case invites the high Court to decide two key issues: (1) whether the DOJ has the authority to dismiss qui tam suits where it declined to intervene, and (2) what standard of review applies to such requests for dismissal. Continue Reading Supreme Court To Review DOJ’s Authority to Dismiss Qui Tam FCA Suits Over Objections From Relators

Introduction

Federal and state governments are ready to roll out over one trillion dollars in funding in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  As past is often prologue, we expect this new round of massive government spending to someday be subjected to strict government oversight, targeted audits and investigations, and whistleblowers all searching for potential fraud, waste and abuse.  Economic downturns and the unfortunate necessity of layoffs may also lead to an increased risk of whistleblower claims by former employees.  Flooding the healthcare industry and other negatively impacted industry streams with hundreds of billions in aid will no doubt prove too tempting for the ever-present fraudsters in society who are always looking to take advantage.  As we have learned from past crises, however, when government enforcement eventually gets around to casting its False Claims Act (FCA) nets far and wide in search of potential fraud and abuse, many unwary businesses may be ensnared along with the usual fraudsters because of their sloppy or reckless practices. Deficient practices today could trigger an FCA investigation or enforcement action tomorrow along with all of its draconian treble damages and penalties.  This article details the risks businesses face under the FCA when responding to COVID-19, and provides guidance on how to guard against them now.Continue Reading Guard Against False Claims as Massive Government Spending Rolls Out to Combat COVID-19

On January 25, 2018, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand issued a memorandum (the “Brand Memo”) limiting the use of agency guidance documents in affirmative civil enforcement cases. The memorandum builds on Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ November 16, 2017 memorandum prohibiting DOJ from promulgating guidance documents that create rights or obligations that are binding on regulated parties. When DOJ issues a guidance document with voluntary standards, it must also contain a statement that noncompliance is not subject to future DOJ enforcement actions. The Brand Memo makes clear that this principle also applies to other agencies’ guidance documents. In other words, agency guidance, in and of itself, cannot create new binding legal requirements.
Continue Reading “Brand Memo” Prohibits US DOJ From Converting Agency Guidance Into Binding Legal Obligations In Civil Enforcement Actions

2016 was a big year for the False Claims Act (FCA).  Total government recoveries were up; total new matters filed were up; and total new government-led FCA matters were up.  The Supreme Court issued multiple decisions relating to the FCA, including one—Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016)—which will have dramatic ramifications for litigation relating to the FCA’s materiality standard.  The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in an important FCA case—U.S. ex rel. Purcell v. MWI, Inc., 807 F.3d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc denied, cert. denied, 580 U.S. ___ (2017)[1]—in which the D.C. Circuit held that when a defendant adopts an objectively reasonable or plausible interpretation of an ambiguous regulatory term and the agency has not warned the defendant away from its interpretation via authoritative guidance, the FCA’s scienter element cannot be established.  (Note: We previously covered the Purcell decision on our FCA blog.  You can view our article, here.)  Although some of these developments may seem concerning, there is plenty of silver lining here for government contractors.
Continue Reading What’s Past is Prologue: How The FCA’s Eventful Year in 2016 Will Affect Government Contractors

By David Gallacher

Nearly three years ago, on September 27, 2010, the President signed into law the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (“Jobs Act”), which directed the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to implement a variety of small business size and integrity requirements. As noted in our prior blog posting discussing many of these requirements, many of these provisions posed a significant threat to government contractors – both large and small businesses alike. On October 7, 2011, the SBA published its blueprint for implementing the statutory requirements. See 76 Fed. Reg. 52313 (the “Proposed Rule”). The Proposed Rule contained language that many industry participants and observers found alarming, particularly the requirements that:Continue Reading Threats and Vulnerabilities – What Every Contractor Should Know About The SBA’s New “Presumed Loss” and “Deemed Certification” Rules

The First Circuit has added its say on the meaning of the False Claims Act’s “first to file” rule (31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)) by holding that a first-filed complaint will preclude a later-filed suit, even when the first complaint is found insufficient under Rule 9(b) particularity requirements. See United States ex rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp., 2013 WL 2364172 (1st Cir. May 31, 2013). There is already a circuit split on this issue between the Sixth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit, and the First Circuit’s recent decision further deepens this split. Time will tell if the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in on the issue.
Continue Reading An FCA Kerfuffle: First Circuit Reaffirms the Intent of the “First to File” Rule and Deepens Circuit Split

By Christopher Loveland and Jonathan Aronie 

While multi-million dollar False Claims Act (FCA) settlements paid by Government contractors get the lion’s share of the press, those with an attentive eye will have noticed a recent steady stream of more “contractor friendly” FCA decisions flying just under the national press’s radar. These cases, all arising in the context of the GSA Multiple Award Schedule program, serve as timely reminders that the FCA is not a blank check for opportunistic relators (plaintiffs/whistleblowers), and that relators must be in possession of facts actually supporting their allegations before walking into court. [1]Continue Reading Common Sense Prevails Once Again: District Court FCA Ruling Serves As Reminder That Whistleblowers Need to Prove Recklessness Too

By John Hynes

On November 2, 2012, the Sixth Circuit held that a 2009 amendment Congress made to the liability provisions of the False Claims Act ("FCA") applies retroactively to civil FCA cases pending as of June 7, 2008. U.S. ex rel. Sanders v. Allison Engine Co., Nos. 10-3818/10-3821, at *17-20 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2012).Continue Reading Sixth Circuit: FERA False Claims Act Amendment Applies Retroactively to Cases Pending as of June 7, 2008