Because I knew both that I was drinking coffee and that it contained cream. The Sixth Circuit applied similar reasoning in its most recent False Claims Act decision, U.S. ex. rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, No. 15-4406, 2016 WL 6832974 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016), in which it decided—as a matter of first impression—construction of the FCA’s scienter requirements for a reverse false claim (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G)) and a conversion (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(D)), as amended in 2009 by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (“FERA”). Construing the FCA’s reverse false claim prohibition against knowingly avoiding an obligation to the United States, the court held that liability will attach only if the offender knows both of the obligation and that he avoided it. Similarly, to be liable for a conversion under the FCA, the offender must know both that he caused to be delivered “less than all” of certain property to the government and also that the property at issue belongs to the government. With these holdings, the Harper court reaffirmed the important threshold scienter distinctions separating an ordinary breach of contract from a violation of the FCA.