Tag Archives: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

DOJ Advocates for Dismissal of False Claims Act Case, Urges SCOTUS Not to Clarify Escobar Materiality Standard

▪ Written by
In an unusual amicus brief, DOJ urged the Supreme Court of the United States not to grant certiorari in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Campie because “continued prosecution of the suit is not in the public interest.”  DOJ argued that, should the case be remanded, it would ultimately seek dismissal itself under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). Presciently, Jeff Belkin and Mike Mortorano wrote for Law360 here about seeking DOJ dismissal of False Claims Act cases under that little-used provision, noting that DOJ may be sensitive to “closing off a legal theory of recovery in future [...]Read more

DOJ Crackdown on False Certification for Small Business Set-aside Award

▪ Written by
As discussed in prior blog posts, the DOJ over the last few years has continued to crack down on small-business contracting fraud, including “pass through” and “sham” contracting schemes. This trend has continued, and the DOJ recently cracked down on a subcontractor’s false certification for a government small-business set-aside program. On May 3, 2018, the DOJ announced that MassTech Inc. (MTI) and its CEO and CFO agreed to pay the United States $1.9 million to resolve allegations that MTI falsely certified it was a small business concern in order to obtain a Small Business Innovation [...]Read more

Jeff Belkin Quoted by Law360 on Leaked DOJ FCA Memo

▪ Written by
On January 25, 2018, Jeff Belkin was quoted by Law360 in the article “FCA Memo No Proof of New DOJ Direction on Dismissals,” which covers a recently leaked memo from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) detailing when DOJ attorneys should ask to dismiss “meritless” qui tam False Claims Act cases. The article covers varying viewpoints about what the impact of the memo will be on future FCA cases. Many FCA defense attorneys have reacted positively, some saying that the memo does suggest a change in policy. Others have reservations and remain unconvinced of actual policy changes. In the article, [...]Read more

The Federal Government Procurement Process Could Go Digital

▪ Written by and
In order to keep up with online marketplaces available at the “one touch” of a smartphone, the federal government is doing its part to bring its procurement process into the digital age. Legislation passed earlier this year by the House of Representatives would allow the U.S. military and civilian government agencies to buy products directly from new online marketplaces instead of following the current procurement process for purchases above the “micro-purchase” threshold (i.e., a few thousand dollars). The newly proposed process would present many opportunities for online retailers and [...]Read more

The Supreme Court Weighs In on the Implied Certification Theory of False Claims Act Liability

▪ Written by and
The Supreme Court has handed the Department of Justice and qui tam relators a bigger hammer to wield against government contractors with its opinion in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, confirming the viability of the implied certification theory of False Claims Act (FCA) liability. In this case, the relators filed a qui tam action alleging that a provider of mental-health services in Massachusetts violated the FCA when it submitted Medicaid reimbursement claims that included representations about the services provided, but failed to disclose that the service [...]Read more

Is the False Claims Act Becoming a Catch-All Penalty for Any and Every Contractual Breach?

▪ Written by and
A recent Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement announcement suggests that the government intends to continue to use the False Claims Act (FCA), rather than more traditional breach of contract or tort claims or regulatory authority, to administer its contracts. On March 7, 2016, the DOJ announced its $3 million settlement with ArmorSource LLC to resolve FCA allegations against the company. ArmorSource contracted with the U.S. Army in 2006 to provide ballistic helmets for combat. In 2010, the Army recalled the helmets after rounds of failed ballistic safety tests. The government alleged that from [...]Read more