DOJ

Subscribe to DOJ
Photo of Crowell & Moring

Crowell & Moring has issued its seventh-annual “Litigation Forecast 2019: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year.” 

The section focusing on government contracts, “Bid Protests Enter A Shifting Landscape,” provides an overview of how the process of protesting the awarding of a federal contract might dramatically change in 2019.

Also of interest to contractors, the article, “DOJ: Putting Limits On Guidance,” which outlines how The DOJ’s Brand Memo may give health care contractors a new avenue of defense in FCA litigation, but its interpretation is still unclear.

The Forecast further explores the developing legal, regulatory, and technology developments affecting a wide range of companies in twelve areas of law: antitrust, corporate, cybersecurity, e-discovery, environmental, government contracts, health care, intellectual property, international trade, labor and employment, torts, and white collar.

Be sure to follow the conversation on social media with #LitigationForecast.

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, on health care fraud and FCA issues.

Listen: Crowell.com | PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes 

Photo of David B. Robbins

This week’s episode covers DOJ, IDIQ, and GAO case law news, and is hosted by partner 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: Crowell.com | PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes 

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  and refine the materiality requirement under the FCA.  Join us on May 17, 2018, at 8:30 AM Eastern, as Crowell & Moring attorneys Brian Tully McLaughlin, Mana Lombardo, Jason Crawford, and Nkechi Kanu lead a discussion highlighting recent developments impacting FCA investigation, enforcement, and litigation under the False Claims Act.  Specific topics include:

  • DOJ Enforcement Trends and Developments: What They Mean for Investigation and Litigation Strategy
  • The Continuing Emphasis on Materiality in the Wake of Escobar
  • Case developments and impacts

For more information and to register for OOPS, please click here.

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 total in thirty years, and the eighth consecutive year that recoveries have exceeded $3 billion.

At the industry level, DOJ reported $2.47 billion in recoveries from the health care sector, and $220 million from defense companies.  The largest health care industry recoveries in FY 2017 came from the drug and medical device industry.  In the procurement fraud arena, the bulk of the recovery came from two large settlements, one involving charges to the Department of Defense and the other involving charges to the Department of Energy.  The government collected approximately $1 billion from the remaining industries, including national security, food safety and inspection, federally insured loans and mortgages, highway funds, small business contracts, agricultural subsidies, disaster assistance, and import tariffs.

The change in presidential administration appears to have had little effect on FCA activity.  DOJ continued its pursuit of individual owners and executives of private corporations under the FCA.  It entered into numerous settlements wherein individuals agreed to joint and several liability with their company.  DOJ also obtained over $60 million in FCA settlements and judgments with individuals that did not involve joint and several liability with the corporate entity.  Also, the number of new FCA actions in FY 2017 remained high with relators bringing 674 new qui tam matters and DOJ initiating 125 matters on its own.  Of the $3.7 billion recovery, $3.4 billion related to suits initiated by whistleblowers, and over $3 billion of that came from suits where the government either intervened or otherwise pursued the matter.  These numbers are consistent with the prior five years and suggest that the FCA will remain an active area for investigations and litigation in 2018.

Photo of David B. 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. This latest edition is hosted by partner David Robbins and includes updates on GAO’s Whistleblower Protections Pilot Program, the latest from the House of Representatives, and a DOJ FCA matter.

Listen: Crowell.com | PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes

Photo of Peter J. EyrePhoto of David B. 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, with the latest edition hosted by partners David Robbins and Peter Eyre and including updates on DOJ Fraud Section guidance, GSA OIG’s report on 18F, and an interesting Fourth Circuit decision. Click on one of the options listed below to listen.

Listen: Crowell.com | PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes

Photo of Lorraine M. Campos

On February 8, 2017, the Department of Justice Fraud Section posted a new guidance document on its website entitled, “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs”  (“Compliance Guidance”).  This Compliance Guidance, comprised of a number of topics and questions, comes a little over a year after the Fraud Section hired Hui Chen as its resident compliance expert.  Tapping into her experience as both a prosecutor and a compliance professional at several large multinational companies, Ms. Chen has commented that an effective compliance program requires a whole-company commitment, and has emphasized the importance of leadership and key stakeholders in the compliance process.[1]  Her vision is evident in the Fraud Section’s recently released Compliance Guidance, which provides some insights into the mindset of prosecutors tasked with corporate investigations.[2]   The Compliance Guidance itself references two of the ten “Filip Factors,”[3] an enumerated set of factors used by prosecutors in making charging decisions related to corporate entities.  Although the Compliance Guidance cautions that the Fraud Section does not use a “rigid formula” to assess a company’s compliance program, the guidance provides a detailed list of compliance-focused sample topics and questions that the Fraud Section believes are relevant to its analysis.

Continue Reading DOJ Issues New Guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

Photo of Gail D. ZirkelbachPhoto of Jason M. CrawfordPhoto of Stephanie Willis

On February 14, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Cmty. Inc. addressing only the first of the two issues that the district court had certified for interlocutory appeal: (1) whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) possesses an unreviewable veto authority over proposed settlements and (2) whether statistical sampling, the analysis of data from a subset of the population of interest in order to make projections across the population of claims at issue, is an appropriate methodology for establishing liability and damages in False Claims Act (FCA) cases.
In its decision, the Fourth Circuit became the third circuit to affirm that the DOJ has absolute, unreviewable authority to veto settlements in qui tam cases where it has declined to intervene. However, notwithstanding that the name of the defendant corporation is derived from the Greek word for love, the Fourth Circuit’s decision (on Valentine’s Day) not to opine on the statistical sampling issue showed no love for those that hoped that the court would bring needed clarity on the permissibility of statistical sampling in FCA cases. Instead, as the authors predicted in a recent Law360 article, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal as “improvidently granted” because the panel viewed statistical sampling as an evidentiary issue, rather than a pure question of law.

Continue Reading Valentine’s Day Disappointment for FCA Practitioners Hoping for a Ruling on Stat Sampling

Photo of Mana Elihu LombardoPhoto of Brian Tully McLaughlin

Effective August 1, the penalty range for violations under the civil False Claims Act nearly doubled, pursuant to a Department of Justice interim final rule published on June 30th.  In a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor, C&M attorneys analyze how the dramatic increase in FCA penalties impacts the landscape of litigation.  The article first explains the background of the recent law and DOJ’s new rule. Next, it assesses how the increased penalties are likely to lead to an increase in FCA suits, including in cases where actual damages may be low or even nonexistent. It then discusses how the increased penalties range provides leverage to the Government (and potentially relators, too) in FCA settlement negotiations where contractors find themselves daunted by potentially gargantuan fines. Finally, it provides an analysis on constitutional challenges to exorbitant FCA penalties under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, and assesses how litigation may be prolonged by post-judgment challenges to the heightened penalty amounts.