Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
3M Settles False Claims Act Lawsuit over Defective Military Earplugs
On July 26, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a False Claims Act settlement linked to defective ear plugs manufactured by 3M Company (3M), a the multinational manufacturing company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. As noted in the DOJ's press release, without a finding of liability, 3M agreed to pay $9.1 million dollars based on whistleblower allegations that the company knowingly sold the Defense Logistics Agency, the combat logistics support branch of the Department of Defense, defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2). The DOJ indicated that, in distributing this product, 3M — including through its predecessor entity, Aearo Technologies Inc. — failed to reveal that defects lessened its hearing protection effectiveness. Specifically, the ear plugs were too short for a user's ears and, over time, loosened, causing performance issues.
The 3M settlement results from the whistleblower (qui tam) provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit individuals and companies to make claims when there is evidence of fraud against the U.S. government. The whistleblower provisions afford individuals the right to file suit under seal in a United States District Court on behalf of the government and share in approximately 15% – 30% of the profits. In fiscal year 2017, the DOJ recovered over $3.7 billion from False Claims Act settlements and judgments, with $3.4 billion resulting from lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provisions. As a result of these settlements and judgments, the DOJ paid out $392 million to whistleblowers. 3M's competitor and ear plug manufacturer, Moldex-Metric Inc. filed the lawsuit in 2016 and will receive over $1,911,000 million. See, United States ex rel. Moldex-Metric v. 3M Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-1533-MBS (D.S.C.). The settlement was the result of coordination between the DOJ's Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
In announcing the settlement, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Chad A. Readler of the DOJ's Civil Division, stated: “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the men and women serving in the United States military from defective products and fraudulent conduct …. Government contractors who seek to profit at the expense of our military will face appropriate consequences.”
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?