The federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) is one of the United States’ most effective tools to detect and prevent fraud against the Government. One reason the FCA is so effective is that it encourages the employees of an organization to come forward as claimants and receive a share of any financial recovery to the Government. Recognizing the central role of these whistleblowers in the FCA’s enforcement scheme, Congress included an anti-retaliation provision in the statute that protects them when they report suspected fraudulent conduct. Under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision, employees, contractors, or agents can sue for damages on their own behalf if they are “discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done” in connection with a reported FCA violation. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1). Likewise, nearly every state also affords some degree of whistleblower protection, either statutorily or in the common law.
On August 30, 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals brought renewed attention to the conundrum of False Claims Act (“FCA”) damages by applying a pro tanto allocation rule to a partially settled case. In United States v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 21-5179, 2022 WL 3723020 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 30, 2022), the court reasoned that, because the government had already recovered its full alleged damages through co-defendants’ settlements, it could not seek additional damages from the remaining defendant, regardless of that defendant’s alleged misconduct.
The FCA’s Treble Damages Provision
Under the FCA, 31 USC § 3729-3733, “any person” found to have violated the statute:
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, as adjusted … plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.
In United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943), the Supreme Court described “damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person” as the amount the government would have paid for the fraudulent goods or services had it known the relevant facts. The Court further rationalized that allowing damages to be multiplied per the statute was consistent with the common law tradition of civil punitive damages. In the 80 years since Marcus, courts have continued to grapple with the nature and calculation of FCA damages: whether they are punitive or compensatory; whether they are sufficiently predictable to encourage settlement; and whether they serve as a sufficient deterrent for wrongful conduct.
In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to address the issue of whether the United States can seek to dismiss a whistleblower’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit after it has elected not to participate in the case. And, if it can seek dismissal, what standard should apply?
On June 21, 2022, the Court agreed to consider the matter of United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (Case No. 19-3810). In his cert petition, the whistleblower presses the theory that after the United States declines to intervene in an FCA qui tam case, it lacks any authority to dismiss the action. At a minimum, the petitioner argues that the Court should resolve a long-standing split among the Circuit Courts regarding the standard that applies to such a motion—a split that has splintered even further in response to an uptick in such motions since 2018.
The attention-grabbing headline from the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) annually released statistics on False Claims Act (“FCA”) settlements and judgments is that the government recovered more than $5.6 billion from FCA cases in fiscal year (“FY”) 2021. While this is the second largest annual recovery in FCA history and the largest since 2014, procurement fraud cases represented a substantially smaller percentage of the total recoveries than in years past. Healthcare resolutions dominated, accounting for more than five billion of the $5.6 billion in settlements and judgments. In previous years, healthcare matters have accounted for closer to two-thirds of the total recoveries, making last year’s outsized healthcare figure—driven by the blockbuster opioid settlements of late 2020—an outlier.
Beyond the top-line dollar figures, the report shows that FCA activity continues at a healthy, if not fully robust, pace. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact qui tam filings; the number of new whistleblower suits dropped to 598 in FY 2021, a ten-year low. The number of DOJ-initiated matters remains higher than the near-term average, particularly in healthcare, but also in Department of Defense (“DOD”)-related cases. Contractors, healthcare providers, and others—especially those who received federal funding through pandemic aid programs—can anticipate that FCA investigations and resolutions will play out over the next several years.
Jennifer’s session, “FCA/FCPA: Fraud and Enforcement,” will take place on Thursday, January 27, from 12:00 to 1:50 p.m. EST, and will break down the top trends in enforcement of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).
Other panels include:
Investigations, Disclosures, S&D
Labor and Employment
Costs, Pricing, and Audits
Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Cybersecurity and Information Technology (“CMMC”)
Claims, Disputes, and Terminations
Small Business Contracting
Mergers and Acquisitions
Statutes, Regulations, EOs, and Policies
CLE may be available.
Blank Rome is pleased to be a sponsor of this program.
For more information and to register, please visit the event webpage.
On October 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a new Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative to pursue cybersecurity fraud matters using the enforcement mechanisms of the False Claims Act (“FCA”).
This initiative follows DOJ’s four-month effort to review its cybersecurity strategy and reflects the government’s increased focus on contractor data security. Led by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section—i.e., the DOJ Section responsible for investigating and litigating FCA matters—the initiative targets government contractors and grant recipients that “put U.S. information or systems at risk” by “knowingly”:
providing deficient cybersecurity products or services;
misrepresenting the company’s cybersecurity practices or protocols; or
violating their obligations to monitor and report cybersecurity incidents and breaches.
We discuss the cybersecurity landscape preceding the new initiative, possible impacts and focus areas of the initiative, and how contractors should prepare for potential enforcement.
To read the full client alert, please visit our website.
The ABA Section of Public Contract Law serves to provide balanced recommendations on procurement policy, provide a forum to engage with colleagues across all segments of the procurement industry, and gain insight into and develop unique perspectives of federal, state, and local public contract law. For more information, please visit the Section’s webpage.
With the recent adoption of the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”), the state’s consumers will have new rights to understand what data a company collects about them, how that data is used, and with whom they share it. In short, the new law will have a national impact on any company doing business in the state.
In our last post on this topic, we touched on how the acceptance, use, and forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans can be viewed in the context of a Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”) audit. This post focuses on audits and investigations involving PPP loans. Close scrutiny of PPP loans is not a prediction; it is reality. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has announced it will audit all PPP loans in excess of two million dollars following a lender’s submission of a borrower’s loan forgiveness application, and it reserves the right to “spot check” any PPP loan of a lesser amount at its discretion. The Department of Justice has already charged multiple individuals with PPP fraud. And this is just the beginning of what many think will be a tidal wave of enforcement activity involving PPP loans.
Overview of the PPP
The PPP is the largest relief measure for small businesses under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). The government has made available nearly one trillion dollars in PPP relief funds through four separate funding measures ($349 billion via the CARES Act; $310 billion via the PPP and Health Care Enhancement Act; $284 billion via the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021; and $7.25 billion via American Rescue Plan Act of 2021).
The PPP makes available guaranteed SBA loans to small business that meet certain eligibility requirements. In addition, PPP loans can be forgiven fully if used properly to cover specified business expenses such as payroll, rent, utilities, mortgage interest, and other limited uses. As of April 11, 2021, the SBA had approved more than 9.5 million loans totaling more than $755 billion using more than 5,400 lenders.