Following Escobar, the issue of materiality remains at the forefront of False Claims Act motion practice at both the pleadings and judgment stage. Escobar emphasized that the FCA materiality requirement is demanding. In the case of Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. United States Ex Rel. Jeffrey Campie, et al. the respondents, qui tam relators, learned that the United States might agree on the law, but not the merits of the claim.

In Gilead Sciences, respondents pled that petitioner misrepresented the source of certain drugs used to treat HIV by manufacturing drugs in unregistered facilities and falsely telling the Federal Drug Administration that the drugs came from an approved manufacturer. The petitioner eventually obtained approval of the unregistered facility, which respondents allege was based on falsified and concealed data. Petitioner later stopped using the facility due to contamination issues. Respondents allege that because the drugs were adulterated or misbranded, they were not FDA approved and not eligible for payments under government programs.

The district court dismissed the second amended complaint on the basis that petitioner’s alleged misrepresentation to the FDA, rather than the paying agencies, could not establish a false claim for payment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed finding that respondents adequately alleged materiality. In applying the multi-factor materiality inquiry, the Ninth Circuit held that the government’s continued payment of the petitioner, despite alleged knowledge of the misrepresentations to the FDA, was not solely dispositive on the issue of materiality at the pleading stage. 
Continue Reading

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the recently issued case of United States ex. rel. Rose v. Stephens Institute (Rose) held that the two-step test of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar (Escobar) is mandatory in implied false certification cases brought under the False Claims Act (FCA).

In

Regardless of your industry, companies that have business dealings with the federal government face the persistent risk of False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and lawsuits. The FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, imposes civil and criminal liability for knowingly making a false or fraudulent claim to the United States for money or property; or

It is no secret that the False Claims Act (“FCA”) is the government’s primary anti-fraud tool and that recoveries under the statute have hit record highs in recent years.  For example, since 1987, FCA recoveries have totaled $56 billion with no single year since 2010 falling below $3 billion.  Moreover, most of these cases have

The case of Green Valley Company, ASBCA No. 61275, presents an interesting conundrum for contractors facing fraud allegations who also have a contract claim against the government.  In 2006, the contractor presented invoices for payment to the government.  In 2017, the contractor converted those invoices into a certified claim requesting payment.  Under the CDA, the contractor had clearly exceeded the 6-year statute of limitations.  However, the contractor requested the ASBCA equitably toll the CDA for what appeared to be sensible grounds.  From 2009 until 2016, the contractor had been defending a lawsuit the government filed against it alleging false claims act violations and breach of contract among other causes of action. The government had simultaneously been considering the contractor for debarment, the death penalty of government contracts.

The contractor argued it could not have submitted its claim to the contracting officer while the lawsuit was pending because the government would have alleged the contractor had made yet another false claim thus further potentially exposing the contractor to additional treble damages.  The ASBCA rejected the contractor’s argument stating “[n]or does [the contractor] explain why the possibility that the government might respond to its claim with fraud based defenses or causes of action would block it from submitting a claim.  The mere fact that such a response from the government might be undesirable to [the contractor] is irrelevant.”  Thus, the contractor’s claim was held to be outside the statute of limitations and the appeal was considered time-barred.
Continue Reading

The Granston memorandum released in early 2018 caused a stir amongst False Claims Act qui tam relators and defendants alike. The practical effects of the Granston memo, however, are not yet fully apparent. Defendants in FCA suits should nonetheless take note that following the release of the Granston memo, the Department of Justice has doubled-down on the importance of its dismissal power.

Leveraging the Government’s Position

One issue the Granston memo raises is whether defendants can leverage the government’s dismissal power in qui tam suits pursuant to seek dismissal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). Two months after the Granston memo’s release there is some indication that it may have a positive effect on dismissals. Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox delivered confirming remarks at the Federal Bar Associations Qui Tam Conference on February 28, 2018:


Continue Reading

Howard Roth authored an article on Buy America and Buy American for the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce.

Below, learn about the differences between the two acts and why they matter to contractors.

In this first year of Donald Trump’s administration, American sourcing requirements are receiving heightened focus that impacts business by providing opportunities and threats.

For instance, President Trump’s “Buy American HireAmerican” executive order restates the policy of the government to buy American. Federal agencies are required to make an assessment of what the executive order calls the “Buy American Laws” aimed at maximum use of United States materials. The executive order is now on the road to changing the landscape of preferences for American products by the end of the year.
Continue Reading

Escobar was initially feared as authorizing another avenue for plaintiffs bringing False Claims Act (FCA) claims. Some federal district courts, however, have used the two-step test of Escobar as a stringent requirement for an implied certification theory for proceeding against a contractor. Other courts, however, have charted a different pathfinding that the two-test step is not a requirement, but rather one means of establishing an implied certification theory based claim.  This is an important development for companies to understand in the face of FCA litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Escobar that a claim under the implied certification theory, which we wrote about previously, required that: (1) the claim make specific representations about the goods or services and (2) the failure to disclose those representations make the claim misleading. The issue arising in recent cases is whether Escobar created an exclusive two-step test that applies to any false certification theory.

Some recent cases illustrate diverging views on the application of the two-part test:


Continue Reading

With every new administration, there is both great uncertainty and opportunity in federal government contracting. To help you navigate the rough seas of doing business with the federal government in this new administration, we have assembled nationally recognized practitioners who will cover topics relevant to government contractors large and small, novice and seasoned. Session topics

14567606128_ee826cf9bd_kFollowing Executive Order 13788 issued April 18, 2017, “Buy American and Hire American,” contractors and subcontractors should prepare for increased enforcement of the Buy American Act (BAA), Buy America legislation, the “Little Buy American Acts,” and related civil or criminal prosecution under the False Claims Acts (FCA).

In recent years, the Department of Justice has increased efforts to prosecute FCA violations in concert with BAA or Buy American violations. In 2016 alone the Department of Justice obtained more than $4.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases under the FCA, its third highest recovery.

Every contractor or subcontractor on a federally funded project supplying construction materials must certify that the materials used are in compliance with the BAA.  Construction work for the DOT, DoD, and other federal agencies may trigger compliance requirements under both with the BAA and Little Buy American Acts. Certificates of compliance, however, can be fruitful grounds for federal prosecutors looking for FCA violations

When a certificate of compliance does not accurately reflect the origin of the materials used under the BAA or Little Buy American Acts, there is a high likelihood that FCA liability may follow. Executive Order 13788 is likely to bring additional attention to the dual enforcement of buying American under the FCA.

A few recent cases illustrate the FCA risks arising from BAA and related laws that require compliance certifications:

  • In 2016, Wisconsin-based architectural firm Novum Structures LLC entered a guilty plea and agreed to pay $3 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability under the False Claims Act 18 U.S.C. § 1001 arising from its concealment of the use of foreign materials on construction projects involving federal funds. Novum has also agreed not to contest its debarment from federal funded projects.


Continue Reading