X

Reset Password

Username:

Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.

False Claims Act Statistics, News & Analysis

FCA Cert. Monitor: Petitions Concerning Materiality After Escobar and the Original Source Exception Before the Court

After some dereliction of our FCA cert. monitoring duties, FCA Cert. Monitor is back. There currently are 10 FCA cases on the Supreme Court’s docket, raising materiality after Escobar, the first-to-file and public disclosure bars, and the Rule 9(b) pleading standard, among other issues.

Read More

The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Pre-ACA Public Disclosure Bar's Stringent Original Source Requirements Defeat Relator's Claim in the Fifth Circuit

As we have written about previously, although almost eight years have passed since the 2010 ACA amendments, because qui tam actions often stay under seal for many years, there are numerous cases before the courts to this day that involve conduct that occurred prior to the amendments. Most recently, the Fifth Circuit in United States ex rel Solomon v. Lockheed Martin Corp. upheld a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman where the relator failed to show that his knowledge of the allegedly false claim was not derived from earlier public disclosures under the pre-2010 amendments to the original source exception. 878 F.3d 139 (5th Cir. 2017).

Read More

Back to Basics with the Original Source: Pre-ACA Public Disclosure Bar

With the fate of the Affordable Care Act in question these days, the FCA community nevertheless continues its struggle to understand and cope with the changes wrought to the statute over seven years ago through the 2010 ACA amendments. And yet, due in large part to the quirky nature of the FCA’s sealing provision, which results in cases existing “undercover” for years, application of pre-ACA law remains an occasional necessity. In September, the Eighth and Fifth Circuits each examined the question of what it means to be a pre-ACA “original source,” the saving grace for relators whose allegations would otherwise be subject to dismissal under the public disclosure bar.

Read More

District Court Shreds Defendant's Hopes of Summary Judgment on Materiality Due to Government's "Mixed Signals"

In a decision earlier this Spring, the D.C. District Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment in a government-intervened implied false certification suit alleging that defendant Capitol Supply sold document shredders through the General Services Administration (“GSA”) website that did not comply with the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) because they were manufactured in China.

Read More

Bon Voyage, US ex rel ABLE v. US Bank: Cert. Denied in CVSG’d Public Disclosure Case

We have been writing about the relator’s cert. petition in U.S. ex rel. ABLE v. US Bank16-130since the earliest days of LLB, but today we say good-bye to that petition about the public disclosure bar because the Supreme Court denied cert, as the Solicitor General recommended.  In other news, because the “ex rel.” might catch some readers’ eyes, we note that the Court also denied cert. in U.S. ex rel. Bauchwitz v. Holloman16-1185, a cert. petition we did not cover because despite being a qui tam, it did not raise FCA issues.

Read More

False Claims Act Cert. Monitor: Attorneys’ Fees, Reverse False Claims, Public Disclosure Bar, and Government Employees as Relators Feature in Three New Petitions

Three new FCA relator cert. petitions have landed in the past few weeks, covering the gamut of FCA legal issues.

First, the relator in U.S. ex rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 16-1278, takes us back to 1L Property, alleging that the Army in 1949 granted the defendant water district a “determinable fee simple estate subject to a possibility of reverter interest retained by the United States.” In other words, the government gave the water district government land to keep so long as the land was used for recreation, conservation, etc. The relator contends that when the defendant entered into oil and gas leases on the land but kept the land and the lease income, it knowingly and improperly avoided an obligation to return the property and income to the government—i.e., a conversion reverse false claim. The question presented to the Court is whether, for a reverse false claim, the relator needed to plead that the defendant subjectively knew that it was violating the terms of the deed and had not committed a mistake of law. A potential difficulty for this petition, however, is that neither Sixth Circuit’s majority nor the dissent focused on the question of subjective knowledge of mistake of law, but rather on whether the relator pleaded sufficient facts from which the court could infer that the defendant “knew or should have known” of the requirement to return the property. The response is currently due June 26, 2017.

Read More

Filter By

Sign Up for Updates

Receive email news and alerts about False Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation from V&E

Dates

Follow Us On Linkedin