Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What the Future Holds for the False Claims Act
The False Claims Act (FCA) is one of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) most powerful civil and criminal enforcement statutes. Also one of the oldest, it originated more than 150 years ago, after the Civil War, to pursue claims of fraud and defective weapons that had been sold to Union troops. The present day FCA provides for treble damages, civil monetary penalties, and recovery of attorney fees. See generally, 31 USC §3730. One of the crucial provisions authorizes qui tam relators to bring an enforcement action on behalf of the United States and receive up to 30% of any recovery if the DOJ does not intervene. If the government does decide to intervene, relators can still receive up to 25% of any recovery. Payment of their attorney fees is available in either setting.
The FCA recoveries have been substantial. In January 2025, the DOJ announced, for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2024, recovery of $2.9 billion, which was the highest amount in the past three years. Importantly, the DOJ also reported that there were almost 1,000 private relators’ actions (979) — an increase of 37% from the preceding year. See, DOJ Jan. 15, 2025 Press Release. The importance of FCA cases, especially those brought by private relators, is underscored by the increasing number of large, private actions such as the January 2025 complaint against Walgreens for filling millions of unlawful opioid prescriptions. U.S. v. Walgreen Co., et al., No. 1:23cv1617 (N.D. Ill. 2023), which initially started as a qui tam action in the Northern District of Illinois. The government intervened in the Walgreens case in light of the allegations of extensive fraudulent conduct and potential recovery.
What Is The Future for the FCA
With the inauguration having taken place and the new Attorney General having been sworn in, the question is, what does the second Trump administration augur for the FCA? The question remains how, not if, the Trump DOJ will change DOJ’s enforcement policies, whether they will maintain current enforcement policies, and what the impact will be, especially for the FCA.
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 customercare@alm.com 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.
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?