COVID-19 Update: FAQ and Other Information for Clients

Articles Tagged with False Claims Act

A smart and tactical choice of venue can set the stage for victory, and in a False Claims Act case, that choice may make all the difference.

In the November 10, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Circuit Split on Materiality Standard in FCA Cases and Choosing the Right VenueContinue reading ›

In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel., __, 575 U.S. __ (2015), two questions were presented before the U.S. Supreme Court: first, whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) suspends the already generous statute of limitation under the False Claims Act (FCA); second whether the FCA’s “first-to-file” rule, which states generally that if more than one whistleblowers file the actions on the same fraud, only the first to file survives and others are dismissed, bars later filed whistleblower actions if the first filed action has been dismissed.

Reversing the Fourth Circuit Court’s decision to extend the WSLA to civil offenses, the Supreme Court unanimously held in that the WSLA only applies to criminal offenses, meaning the WSLA does not suspend the statute of limitation for an individual action brought under the FCA.  The Supreme Court further held that the False Claim’s Act’s first-to-file bar applies only while related claims are active.  Once the first filed case is settled or dismissed, the bar does not apply.

In 2005, the whistleblower, Carter, filed a qui tam complaint alleging that his former employer fraudulently charged the U.S. government for water purification services inadequately or fraudulently performed during the Iraq War.  Nearing trial, the complaint (Carter I) was dismissed under the first-to-file rule based on an earlier filing with similar claims in United States ex rel. Thorpe v. Halliburton Co., No. 05-cv-08924 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 23, 2005).

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently ruled that counterclaims against the whistleblower filed by the target of a whistleblower action can survive. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in United States of America ex rel. Lorraine Notorfransesco v. Surgical Monitoring Association, Inc., et al. (Tucker, C.J.) has denied a motion by the whistleblower, Lorraine Notorfransesco, to dismiss counterclaims made by her former employer, Surgical Monitoring Association (“SMA”).  While the recent ruling seems to suggest that potential whistleblowers would be dissuaded from “blowing the whistle” for fear of being retaliated, the ruling is not exactly as controversial as it seems.

Continue reading ›

The False Claims Act has long stood as the benchmark in legislation to both protect and inform the whistleblower. (For a deeper explanation of the False Claims Act, see the previous post regarding it)  Since the expansion of the law through recent…

2013 Proves Great for Whistleblowers

The False Claims Act has long stood as the benchmark in legislation to both protect and inform the whistleblower. Continue reading ›

by Edward Kang

Modern day application of the False Claims Act falls into a variety of fields and categories which all merit usage under their respective terms when applicable.  One specific claim that seems to be having its usage expanded is a reverse false claim.  Unlike typical false claims where a person can incur liability by receiving a payment… Continue reading ›

The 2007 great recession served as a peak moment in longtime calls for improvement to the American financial regulatory system.  In response to the outcry for system modification, the Obama Administration pushed for a sweeping large scale upheaval of the current regulatory procedure… Continue reading ›

Contact Information