By Jeffrey M. Haber Can I receive a financial award for blowing the whistle on my company? A Texas federal jury has found the entities formerly known as Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation (“Allied Capital”) and Allied Home Mortgage Corporation (“Allied Corporation” and together with Allied Capital, “Allied”) and CEO Jim Hodge liable for violating the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) in connec

By Jeffrey M. Haber On December 14, 2016, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it “obtained more than $4.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims against the government” in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. This amount represents “the third highest annual recovery in False Claims Act history, bringing the fiscal year average to nearly $4 billion since fiscal year 2009, and the total recovery during that perio

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On December 6, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the seal provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) does not mandate dismissal of a relator’s complaint. In doing so, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, which, in turn, affirmed the judgment of the district court. In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby (which this Blog wrote about here and here), whistleblowers, Cori and Kerri Rigsb

By: Jeffrey M. Haber This blog previously wrote about Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, a Medicaid case involving the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). In Escobar, the Court held that implied certification liability under the FCA may exist where the following two conditions are satisfied: (1) the defendant does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or se

By Jeffrey M. Haber What are the seal provisions in a complaint? The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing the conditions under which a federal court should dismiss lawsuits brought by whistleblowers who violate the law's non-disclosure requirements. In short, a complaint must be filed and remain under seal for sixty days. During this period, the government investigates the allegations and decides whether to intervene while the plaintiff is barred from publicly disclosing the suit.

On November 1, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on an appeal that State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. brought in a case filed by two whistleblowers back in 2006. (This Blog wrote about the case here.) The whistleblowers, Cori and Kerri Rigsby, brought a lawsuit against State Farm for defrauding the National Flood Insurance program on claims after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The federal government declined to intervene.According to the Rigsby’s, State Farm charged po

By Jeffrey M. Haber On October 3, 2016, the United States Supreme Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to express the U.S. Government’s views about the application of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) public disclosure bar. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). The request was made in United States ex rel. Advocates for Basic Legal Equality v. U.S. Bank, a qui tam action that the Sixth Circuit held was properly dismissed because of the public disclosure bar. In United States ex rel. Advo

Practitioners involved in quitam litigation often encounter questions concerning when the statute of limitations begins to run. Under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the government (or relator) must file a suit not “more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date

By Jeffrey M. Haber The False Claims Act (“FCA” or the “Act”) prohibits businesses and individuals from defrauding the government by knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment or approval. Currently, violations of the Act can result in a judgment equal to three times the losses sustained by the government, plus civil penalties of $5,500 to $11,000 for each false claim. The Act rewards whistleblowers (also known as “relators”) who successfully

By Jeffrey M. Haber In Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that the false certification theory “can be a basis for liability” under “some circumstances.” (See blog post here.) Those circumstances are: (1) the defendant does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and (2) the defendant’s failure to disclose noncompliance with material st

By Jeffrey M. Haber On June 22, 2016, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in U.S. ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, et al., No. 04-0280 (D.D.C.), a case brought under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against contractors who manufactured and sold bullet proof vests. The purpose of the filing was to notify the court of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar,

Summary On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, a Medicaid case involving the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The “implied false certification” theory provides that a defendant may violate the FCA by failing to disclose noncompliance with a relevant statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirement. In Escobar, the Court unanimously confirmed that the th

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Catastrophic events often bring out the best in people. Sometimes, however, such events bring out the worst in people. The events that followed Hurricane Katrina stand as reminders of the latter, at least according to Cori and Kerri Rigsby, two sisters who filed a False Claims Act ("FCA") complaint against State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. ("State Farm"), among others. The Rigsby sisters, two experienced claims adjusters, alleged that State Farm and other