Qui Tam

In keeping with the trend of increased attention on the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) qui tam provisions, the Second Circuit recently weighed in on a seeming conflict between the statute and the relator’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FCRP”). Under Rule 4(m) of the FRCP, the court generally must dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to serve the defendant with a complaint and summons within 90 days of filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). But a relator bringing suit under the qui tam provisions of the FCA may not serve a defendant until the complaint is unsealed and “until the court so orders.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). In cases brought under the qui tam provisions of the FCA, this creates the potential for questions regarding when the Rule 4(m) service-of-process clock begins to tick.

These questions seldom arise because courts ordinarily unseal a relator’s complaint and simultaneously order the relator to serve the defendant. In which case, the express order to serve the defendant plainly triggers the service-of-process clock under Rule 4(m). But what if the court unseals the relator’s complaint and then delays (or never issues) the order to serve the defendant? This was the question before the Second Circuit last month in U.S. ex rel. Weiner v. Siemens AG, No. 22-2656, 2023 WL 8227913, at 3 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2023).Continue Reading Tick-tock, the Court Starts the Clock: Deconflicting the FCA and Rule 4(m) of the FRCP

The Coalition for Government Procurement and the National Defense Industrial Association filed an amicus brief in the consolidated Supreme Court cases United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. The brief urges the Court to hold, consistent with the decisions of multiple federal courts of appeals, that a defendant cannot be liable under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) for “knowingly” submitting a “false” claim if (1) it acted in accordance with an objectively reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute, regulation, or contract provision and (2) there was no authoritative guidance warning it away from that interpretation.  The Amici are represented by Covington & Burling LLP. 

In SuperValu and Safeway, the Court is asked to resolve questions over the role that subjective intent plays in evaluating whether a defendant satisfies the FCA’s “knowledge” requirement.  Petitioners argue that a contractor can be liable under the FCA for submitting a claim that is premised on an objectively reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous legal provision if the contractor recognized that the provision could be interpreted a different way.  However, as the amicus brief explains, such a claim cannot be false for alleged noncompliance with the ambiguous legal provision that has not otherwise been clarified by authoritative guidance.  Nor can such a contractor knowingly submit a false claim just because it was aware that the legal obligation may be interpreted differently.Continue Reading Amici Curiae Submit Brief Urging Supreme Court to Adopt “Objectively Reasonable” FCA Knowledge Standard

On February 1, 2022, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released its annual report summarizing False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement activity in FY 2021.  The report confirmed what many practitioners already suspected: FY 2021 was another banner year in FCA enforcement.  DOJ’s annual judgments and settlements exceeded $5.6 billion, making FY 2021 the second largest annual recovery ever (and the largest since 2014).  But beyond this top line number, a closer analysis of the figures in DOJ’s report offers additional insight on strategies for preventing and mitigating costly FCA exposure.
Continue Reading DOJ Records Historic False Claims Act Recoveries in FY 2021

Many of our clients have been calling to ask whether failure to comply with the Administration’s Executive Order imposing vaccine mandates on federal contractors could lead to False Claims Act liability, and what steps they can take to minimize the risk of liability.  Much remains unknown, especially what specific obligations will be included in the FAR clause to be released on October 8.  However, we have highlighted a few key considerations that should be front of mind for all contractors and subcontractors.
Continue Reading COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors Could Pose False Claims Act Risk

As the recent SolarWinds Orion attack makes clear, cybersecurity will be a focus in the coming years for both governmental and non-governmental entities alike.  In the federal contracting community, it has long been predicted that the government’s increased cybersecurity requirements will eventually lead to a corresponding increase in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation involving cybersecurity compliance.  This prediction may soon be proven true, as a December 2020 speech from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Granston specifically identified “cybersecurity related fraud” as an “area where we could see enhanced False Claims Act activity.”  This post discusses recent efforts to use the FCA to enforce cybersecurity compliance — and, based on those efforts, what government contractors may expect to see in the future.
Continue Reading Cybersecurity and Government Contracting: False Claims Act Considerations

Under the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) first-to-file bar, “no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.”  But can a relator amend her complaint to add, remove, or substitute relators without violating the first-to-file bar?  Recently, the Third…
Continue Reading Third Circuit Addresses the Scope of the FCA’s First-to-File Bar

On February 27 and 28, 2020, Joseph H. (Jody) Hunt, Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Civil Division, and Michael Granston, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, spoke about False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement at the Federal Bar Association’s annual Qui Tam Conference in Washington, D.C. They highlighted FCA enforcement priorities for 2020, and offered insights on the Department’s dismissal policy and cooperation policy – two topics that Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox also addressed in remarks earlier this year.
Continue Reading Senior DOJ Attorneys Speak About FCA Enforcement Priorities, Dismissal, and Cooperation

The motivating force behind the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (“FCA”) is its provision for qui tam enforcement, which authorizes private parties (aka relators) to initiate FCA cases on behalf of the United States. Id. § 3730(b)(1). Immediately after re-invigoration of the FCA in 1986, scholars and litigants questioned the constitutional validity of statutory authorization for relators to sue on behalf of the U.S. government. After 15 years of litigation, this debate withered, but has been recently re-invigorated.

This post summarizes four principal challenges to the constitutionality of qui tam enforcement, and then discusses two recent events in which these challenges have reappeared: the confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee William Barr and a cert petition that asks the Supreme Court to rule on qui tam constitutionality.
Continue Reading Debate Over Qui Tam Constitutionality Resumes After 20-Year Hiatus

The Third Circuit recently ruled that a qui tam relator must have “direct knowledge” of the fraud or false statements at issue in order to satisfy the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) “original source” jurisdictional requirement.  A relator fails to satisfy the direct knowledge requirement where his or her allegations are mere inferences based on the review of agreements and documents, discussions of those documents with others, or conclusions based on industry experience.  The case is U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., No. 13-1489 (3rd Cir. Oct. 20, 2014).
Continue Reading Third Circuit Requires Actual Knowledge of Fraudulent Claim to Satisfy FCA’s “Direct” Knowledge Requirement

On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the dismissal of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) alleging that government contractor Govplace made false statements and false claims by selling to the Government, via its GSA schedule contract, computer and other products not originating in designated countries under the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”). The decision shows that a contractor may defend against an FCA action by showing that it reasonably relied on a supplier’s certification as to TAA compliance.

The D.C. Circuit Decision: Govplace has been providing information technology (“IT”) integration and product solutions to the Government via a GSA schedule contract since 1999. Products on GSA schedule contracts must comply with the TAA requirement that “only U.S.-made or designated country end products [can] be offered and sold” under such contracts. Govplace acquires many of the products listed in its schedule contract from a distributor, Ingram Micro, which expressly certifies that its products are TAA compliant.

In the Govplace case, the relator alleged that certain products that Govplace acquired from Ingram Micro were manufactured in China, a non-designated country, and that Govplace acted with reckless disregard in relying on Ingram Micro’s certifications.Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Dismisses FCA Suit & Provides Guidance for Contractor Reliance on Supplier Certifications