Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
FCA and Statute of Limitations: A Puzzle for the Supreme Court
The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §3729 et seq., which is more than 150 years old, was originally intended to protect the federal government from fraud perpetrated by war profiteers. Over the years, its scope has expanded to any recipient of federal dollars, especially health care companies. Since 1986, the federal government's recoveries have exceeded $59 billion in FCA settlements and judgments. DOJ, Fraud Statistics – Overview, at 1 (http://bit.ly/2GlIAvp). In 2018 alone, the total recovery was over $2.8 billion, most of which was health-care related. DOJ, Fraud Statistics – Overview, at 1, 3.
As the FCA's use increased over time, Congress strengthened and amended its provisions to add treble damages, increase the civil money penalties, and remove an intent requirement, thereby extending liability to subcontractors. See, Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008) (establishing the intent requirement that Congress later removed). The Supreme Court also broadened the FCA's scope, condoning "implied false certification," Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989, 1995-96 (2016), as well as resurrecting the need for "materiality" of any fraud for a FCA claim to succeed. Id. at 2002-04.
As these changes and rulings suggest, the FCA is not a model of clarity. In a certiorari petition in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018), granted on Nov. 16, 2018, United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 6778, at 1 (Nov. 16, 2018), the Supreme Court will address an area of uncertainty that has led to a three-way circuit split regarding the FCA's statute of limitations. Depending on the outcome, FCA defendants could end up facing even more claims up to a decade old or, alternatively, have a new limitation on FCA actions upon which to rely.
The Conflict Over the Statute of Limitations
There are two types of FCA suits: 1) direct suits filed by the United States, 31 U.S.C. §3730(a), and 2) qui tam actions filed by private plaintiff relators. 31 U.S.C. §3730(b). In a qui tam action, the relator sues "in the name of the United States … 'pursu[ing] the government's claim against the defendant.'" Hunt, 887 F.3d at 1086 (quoting Stalley ex rel. United States v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 524 F.3d 1229, 1233 (11th Cir. 2008)). The recovery belongs to the federal government, but the government can allocate a certain percentage to a relator, 31 U.S.C. §3730(d)(1), (2), as an "incentive to encourage" discovery of fraud against the government. Hunt, 887 F.3d at 1087. These award provisions sometimes lead to relators bringing questionable cases in pursuit of a large settlement, as the DOJ has recognized in its recent memos about dismissal of qui tam actions. See, Dykema, The Tale of Two DOJ Memos and The False Claims Act, Feb. 2, 2018.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?