We are proud to announce a much-needed addition to Husch Blackwell’s lineup of podcasts. Last week, we launched False Claims Act Insights, a new podcast devoted to exploring issues relating to False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and litigation. The show is hosted by Jonathan Porter—a partner in our firm’s White Collar, Internal
Most experienced False Claims Act (FCA) practitioners are all too familiar with the statutory provision requiring defendants to pay whistleblowers’ attorneys’ fees at the end of FCA cases. What is less commonly known is the provision that grants defendants their attorneys’ fees in certain circumstances.
One whistleblower learned about that provision the hard way, when on March 14, 2024, a Mississippi federal judge ordered that he pay over $1 million to cover the defendants’ attorneys’ fees, following grant of summary judgment to defendants in what the judge labeled a “frivolous” qui tam. This blog post looks at the case that led to such a large attorneys’ fees award and considers the types of cases in which these efforts are wise.
On January 10, 2018, citing costs associated with record increases in the number of qui tam actions filed under the False Claims Act, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum[1] to certain DOJ attorneys, strongly signaling the Department’s intent to liberalize its use of section 3730(c)(2)(A) to seek dismissal of qui tam actions.
In the recently leaked memo, Michael Granston, Director of the Fraud Section of DOJ’s Commercial Litigation Branch, outlines “a general framework for evaluating when to seek dismissal” by identifying seven factors that have supported DOJ’s previous successful dismissal requests and emphasizes that the Department views its dismissal authority as one subject only to “highly deferential” review by the courts. The memo suggests DOJ will seek dismissal of these actions more often, making use of its authority to seek dismissal as “an important tool to advance the government’s interests, preserve limited resources, and avoid adverse precedent.” As further indication that the Department intends to pursue aggressively any available means of dismissal of these cases, the Director also recommends asserting in the alternative other independently available grounds for dismissal or requesting partial dismissal where appropriate, and the memo reminds attorneys that dismissal may occur at any stage of the proceedings, depending on the circumstances. The Director also stresses the importance of communication between the DOJ, the affected agency, and relators as a means of encouraging voluntary dismissal.
The District of Columbia reached a settlement agreement with Children’s Hospital, Children’s National Medical Center Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “CNMC”) on June 15, 2015, to resolve allegations that CNMC violated the False Claims Act by submitting false cost reports and other applications to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) as well as to the Virginia and District of Columbia Medicaid programs. Further details can be found in the Department of Justice’s press release announcing the settlement.
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard arguments on whether lawyers are allowed to bring whistleblower lawsuits against their employer and client (U.S. ex rel. Fair Laboratory Practices Associates vs. Quest Diagnostics Inc. et al.). A U.S. District Court threw out the case in April of 2011, ruling that