For those who pay close attention to FCA settlements, the January 22 press release from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York of a $60 million settlement against Walgreens related to its Prescription Savings Club (“PSC”) program should not come as a complete surprise. In an earlier press release, almost two years ago to the day, the Southern District of New...
Rejecting the views of the Fourth and Tenth Circuits, the Eleventh Circuit held the FCA’s three year statute of limitations period in § 3731(b)(2) applies to a relator’s claim even when the United States declines to intervene, and in so doing held it is the knowledge of a government official, not the relator, that triggers the three year limitations period, rejecting the contrary view of...
In recent weeks, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued two memoranda that might change the calculus of False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases. The memoranda at a minimum provide organizations with new—or at least invigorated—defenses to qui tam actions and civil enforcement matters. First, on January 10, Michael Granston, Director of DOJ’s Civil Frauds section, issued a memorandum encouraging DOJ trial attorneys to consider dismissing...
A Federal court in Ohio recently dismissed a qui tam lawsuit brought under the False Claims Act by Kustom Products, Inc. against Hupp & Associates, Inc., a defense contractor, and in so doing provided judicial treatment of the common practice of alleging facts “upon information and belief.” United States ex rel. Kustom Prods. v. Hupp & Assocs., No. 2:15-cv-03101, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72814 (S.D. Ohio May...
The False Claims Act (FCA) allows plaintiffs/relators to bring qui tam actions, in which the government may then elect to intervene. The FCA also provides that “[t]he Government may settle a [qui tam] action with the defendant notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the...
In United States ex rel. Keen v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., relator Janice Keen sued her former employer—the pharmaceutical company Teva—for violations of the FCA. According to Ms. Keen, Teva trained its sales force to misleadingly promote and sell a medicine used to treat muscle spasms. Ms. Keen alleged that Teva’s deceptive practices caused physicians to prescribe the medicine in situations for which it was...
On September 14, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted a government contractor’s summary judgment motion and dismissed a lawsuit brought against it by False Claims Act relators (“Relators”) because Relators failed to identify evidence supporting the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding their claims that the contractor had improperly billed the Federal Emergency Management Agency...
A recent settlement illustrates the substantial recovery available to whistle-blowers under the FCA’s qui tam provisions. Those provisions allow a qui tam plaintiff to receive typically between 15 percent and 25 percent of the proceeds of an FCA settlement. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d). The settling party—Preferred Imaging—is a Dallas-based company that operates independent diagnostic facilities in Texas, Illinois, and Kansas. Preferred Imaging performs procedures involving the administration of contrast...
The FCA first-to-file bar provides that if an action involving the same subject matter is already pending, “no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5). Courts are thus deprived of jurisdiction to entertain opportunistic qui tam lawsuits based on facts similar to an already-filed lawsuit. In May 2015, the...
On November 13, 2015, the New York State Supreme Court dismissed a qui tam action brought under New York State Finance Law §§ 187-194 (“False Claims Act”) against The Vanguard Group Inc., The Vanguard Group of Mutual Funds, and Vanguard Marketing Corporation (collectively, “Vanguard”) by a former Vanguard in-house tax attorney because the Court found that plaintiff had improperly relied on confidential information obtained through...
