Photo of Peter J. EyrePhoto of David B. Robbins

This week’s episode covers debarment, defense spending, and FCA news, and is hosted by partners Peter Eyre and David Robbins. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.

Listen

Photo of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Jason M. CrawfordPhoto of Mana Elihu Lombardo

In this episode, hosts Mana Lombardo and Jason Crawford are joined by Tully McLaughlin, co-chair of the firm’s False Claims Act Practice, to discuss some of the unique considerations for trying False Claims Act cases. “Let’s Talk FCA” is Crowell & Moring’s podcast covering the latest developments with the False Claims Act.

ListenCrowell.com

Photo of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Sarah HillPhoto of Nkechi Kanu

Recently, in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy Inc., the Eleventh Circuit widened a split in authority regarding the applicability of the tolling provision of the False Claims Act’s statute of limitations, holding that it is applicable to qui tam actions even when the government declines to intervene.  The court also found that the period is triggered by a government official’s knowledge of the fraud. 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018).  In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits’ interpretation of the statutory language and arguably extended the filing period for relators within its jurisdiction.
Continue Reading

Photo of Jason M. CrawfordPhoto of Mana Elihu LombardoPhoto of William Chang

“Let’s Talk FCA” is Crowell & Moring’s podcast covering the latest developments with the False Claims Act. In this episode, hosts Mana Lombardo and Jason Crawford interview Will Chang, a partner in the firm’s Health Care and White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement groups and a former trial attorney at the DOJ Criminal Division, Fraud Section,

Photo of Mana Elihu Lombardo

Are we experiencing a shift towards a higher bar for pursuing False Claims Act Cases?  Department of Justice guidelines may signal a new direction from the last two decades of DOJ FCA enforcement history through policies that reign in relators and articulate some boundaries for cases pursued by DOJ.  Meanwhile, Escobar progeny continues to develop  

Photo of Jason M. CrawfordPhoto of Mark R. Troy

On March 22, 2018, an Indiana state trial court judge granted a motion to dismiss in State of Indiana ex. rel Harmeyer v. The Kroger Co. et al. Relator Harmeyeran attorney and Kroger patron—alleged that the grocery chain knowingly failed to collect and remit state sales tax on hundreds of goods throughout the state.  Under Indiana law, the state’s gross retail tax does not apply to “food and food ingredients” but it does apply to candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements, and prepared foods.  Relator’s sixth amended complaint identified more than 1,400 food items that relator alleged were mischaracterized as tax-exempt based on the ingredients and food preparation.  For example, relator alleged that a protein bar should be classified as taxable candy rather than nontaxable food.  By classifying items as tax-exempt, relator alleged that the grocery chain cost the state millions of dollars in tax revenue each year.

The superior court judge dismissed relator’s complaint with prejudice holding that the complaint failed to meet the heightened pleading requirement of 9(b) because Harmeyer failed to allege the time, place, and method by which misrepresentations were made to the state.  The court also noted that Harmeyer, whose similar case against a grocer in another state had been dismissed, was not an employee of Kroger, had no inside knowledge of what took place within the company, and merely presumed, as he had in his other case, that the defendant’s characterization of the items as tax-exempt was false and done with reckless disregard of the truth.  While Harmeyer argued that the allegation of 1400 mischaracterizations was sufficient to plead recklessness, the court could not determine from the complaint whether this was a substantial percentage of the products sold by defendant and therefore could not presume recklessness from that number. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, and the relator filed a notice of appeal on April 13.


Continue Reading

Photo of David B. RobbinsPhoto of Peter J. Eyre

This week’s episode covers False Claims Act items, GAO protests, and cybersecurity and is hosted by partners Peter Eyre and David Robbins. Crowell & Moring’s “Fastest 5 Minutes” is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.

Photo of Mana Elihu LombardoPhoto of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Laura CordovaPhoto of Jason M. Crawford

On December 21, 2017, the Department of Justice announced that it recovered more than $3.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil False Claims Act (FCA) cases in Fiscal Year 2017. The FY 2017 figures reflect the government’s continued trend of annually amassing multi-billion dollar recoveries under the FCA.  This recovery is the fourth largest

Photo of Alan W. H. GourleyPhoto of Brian Tully McLaughlinPhoto of Jason M. Crawford

On May 16, 2017, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in United States ex rel. Omar Badr v. Triple Canopy, holding that the Government had properly alleged an implied certification claim under the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016).  In the eleven months following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the implied certification theory of liability, Escobar has been cited in nearly 100 court opinions. (Our recent Feature Comment in the Government Contractor highlights some of the key cases and developing trends).

In Badr, the relator alleges that a security contractor responsible for ensuring the safety of an air base in a combat zone employed Ugandan guards who were unable to meet the required marksmanship scores on a U.S. Army qualification course. According to the relator, Triple Canopy knowingly falsified marksmanship scorecards and presented claims to the government for payment for those guards.


Continue Reading