CASE LAW ALERT:  Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex re. Hunt, 2019 WL 2078086, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2019) In a unanimous opinion issued on May 19, 2019, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the statute of limitations applicable to qui tam False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases in which the

Federal agencies are increasing civil monetary penalties for the violation of numerous federal laws for the first time since the 1990’s.[1] Of particular concern to government contractors are recent interim final rule changes issued by the U.S. Departments of Justice (“DOJ”) and Labor (“DOL”) that have increased the maximum penalties for violation of the False Claims

While many corporations in the federal contracting arena have been expecting regulations to further limit Federal False Claims Act (FCA) liability, those expectations have been called into question by a new federal regulation released last week aimed at doubling False Claims Act penalties. Raised by the obscure Railroad Retirement Board, which infrequently generates FCA cases

In an en banc decision filed July 7, 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s original dismissal of consolidated qui tam suits brought by whistleblowers, alleging that their former employer, Kinetic Concepts, Inc., had fraudulently claimed reimbursements from Medicare. See US ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (12-55396) and US ex rel. Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts,

On January 7, 2015, a California federal judge granted an FCA defendant’s Motion to Dismiss premised on allegations that it failed to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”) regulations. See U.S. ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 11-cv-00941 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015). In this case, two former Gilead employees with quality control responsibilities filed

In 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an important decision on the notion that good faith disputes and/or disputed interpretations of contract requirements should not be actionable as false claims. In Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood, 759 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2014), the relator alleged that the Medi-Cal billing manual required Planned Parenthood to bill Medi-Cal “at cost”