Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/39942886/Docassocfktype-Articles-843
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 20:23:30
Document Index: 339109708

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3730', '§ 3730', '§ 3730', '§ 3730', '§ 3729', '§ 3730', '§ 3730']

Docassocfktype Articles 843
BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinPutting Teeth into the False Claims Act’s Pre-Complaint Disclosure Requirements for RelatorsBY DAVID Z. BODENHEIMER
The changes wrought by the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act1 have fueled a litigation explosion in qui tam actions as whistleblowers scramble to grab a share of escalating recoveries that exceed $1 billion per year.2 One of the most contentiously litigated and consistently confusing components of the 1986 amendments is the jurisdictional restriction on qui tam actions. In general, courts have no jurisdiction over qui tam actions “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions,” such as disclosures in judicial proceedings, congressional hearings, or the news media.3 However, the False Claims Act creates an exception from this jurisdictional bar if a qui tam relator is an original source—a potentially lucrative status conferred by meeting two criteria: (1) having “direct and independent knowledge” of the basis of the alleged fraud and (2) voluntarily disclosing such information to the government before filing suit.4 Despite the burgeoning case law on qui tam jurisdiction in general, the second criterion for original source status (voluntary pre-complaint disclosure to the government) largely escaped judicial scrutiny until the late 1990s. Because of the growing number of recent cases dismissing qui tam actions for failure to adhere to this requirement, neither plaintiffs nor defendants can afford to overlook the jurisdictional mandate for pre-complaint disclosure. Indeed, even the government has invoked this jurisdictional requirement, cutting off relators’ right to share in proceeds recovered via False Claims Act actions.
Proof of Disclosure Initially, relators must establish that a disclosure of the basis of alleged fraud has been made to the government. Relators have sometimes stumbled on this jurisdictional element by failing to come forward with proof of disclosure. For example, a relator ignored court orders and schedules for submitting evidence of such disclosure, resulting in a court’s striking the relator’s belated proffer of proof of pre-complaint disclosure to the government.9 In another case, a relator failed to point out any evidence in the extensive record that would demonstrate that a pre-complaint disclosure had been made.10 Content of Disclosure A relator cannot secure original-source status simply by disclosing allegations or suspicions of fraud. Instead, disclosure must include information supporting an allegation of fraud. The statute’s original-source provision distinguishes between information and allegations by referring to “the information on which the allegations are based” and requiring disclosure of “the information to the Government.”11 A relator “must reveal the facts and circumstances on which the allegations or transactions of his complaint are based.”12 Conclusive allegations and hearsay do not suffice:
While scant authority exists delineating what constitutes a disclosure statement sufficient to survive summary judgment, there is no doubt that it must be more substantive than the notion that “something fishy” is going on. It should, at a minimum, “comprise much of what [the relator] will rely upon to support the contentions in the case at bar.” It cannot gird itself with hearsay from an employee of the purported violator, and then use discovery as a fishing expedition to determine if there was, in fact, a violation.13
Statutory Requirements In a qui tam action, a relator bears the burden of proving jurisdiction.5 If the action rests on information that has been publicly disclosed, a relator can only remain in the case by proving her status as an original source: “For purposes of this paragraph, ‘original source’ means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.”6 This provision represents a jurisdictional prerequisite and is a statutory conditions precedent to a qui tam that is based on publicly disclosed information.7 To satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite for voluntary disclosure to the government, there must be a “disclosure of information to the Government that is voluntarily made before suit is filed.”8
In addition, the scope and content of disclosure must be measured against what information a relator has at the time. For example, a relator could not satisfy the statutory requirements by making a partial disclosure to the government while withholding the rest of the information he has at the time of disclosure: “No one claims that a court should consider information a putative relator says he knew but never communicated to the government. The statute contemplates, indeed requires, that all relevant information be disclosed to the United States.”14
David Z. Bodenheimer is a partner in the government contracts group at Crowell & Moring LLP in Washington, DC.
Disclosure to the Government The statutory provision for disclosure to the government indicates disclosure “to an appropriately responsible government or official agency.”15 A relator could satisfy this requirement “by notifying the United States Attorney, the FBI, or other suitable law enforcement office of the infor-
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. The Procurement Lawyer, Volume 37, Number 4, Summer 2002
1999). See. Endnotes
1. § 3730. to decide whether to intervene.S.26 As the Sixth Circuit explained. 13. Ridgedale Electric. Horizon Healthcare Corp. a court upheld dismissal for lack of voluntary disclosure because the relator had said nothing about the alleged fraud for nearly two years until a federal investigator initiated contact with him and obtained information regarding the alleged fraudulent activities:
Although Barth [the relator] had been aware of Ridgedale’s possible fraud against the government for some time he remained silent until the government itself heard of the fraud and began its own investigation. Barth v. Jones v. S11244 (daily ed.164. Barth did not “voluntarily” bring the information to the government and now rewarding him for merely complying with the government’s investigation is outside the intent of the Act. Billington.191. In this sense. United States ex rel. 682 (S. 971 F. 166 F. Grassley). disclosure that is simultaneous with a complaint does not qualify as timely.19 Proof of voluntary disclosure might also fail if a relator remains silent about alleged fraud until a federal investigation begins. 551 (10th Cir. 2. 604. disclosure to a state or local official is not sufficient to establish original-source status..mation which is the basis for the action. 2d at 666. 167 F. Ackley. Number 4. Where the statute makes jurisdiction depend on events which occur at determinable times.. 76 F. 1997) (footnote deleted). 15.3d 326.C.”25 In addition to requiring disclosure before filing an action. For relators. 1017.g.22 Pre-complaint disclosure is required not only by the express terms of the statute but also by the legislative purpose of encouraging relators to bring information evidencing fraud to the government’s attention at the earliest possible time:
Should jurisdiction depend upon such quirks? Do we really want a rule which says: Get your qui tam claim in quickly? The short answer is yes.198.. International Business Machines Corp. Supp. § 3730(e)(4)(A). n.550. e.D.S.D. a relator’s disclosure must occur before filing a qui tam action. Courts of Appeals for the D. United States ex rel.C. Koch Indus. 99-562.S.23
Although the statute does not mandate a time restriction for disclosure before filing suit. United States v. 1010. The Procurement Lawyer. the U. 2d 654. at 672–73. Md. 2d at 666. In United States ex rel.24 To accomplish this legislative purpose. § 3730(e)(4)(B). Id.17
Voluntary Disclosure The original-source provision expressly requires that a relator’s disclosure be voluntary. 12. The U.”16 Such notification must be made to a federal official or agency. Ackley.2d 548.D. 4. § 3730(e)(4)(B). and to develop allegations should the government choose to intervene. Supp. DeNardi Corp. Supp. v. Va. Under 31 U. Indiana. 9. 31 U. 1995). Summer 2002
..21 (E.3d 853. 31 U. Inc. 7. See 132 CONG. 14.
Pre-Complaint Disclosure To ensure original-source status. Supp. 31 U. 6. Precision Co. and Sixth Circuits required that relators tell the government of the basis for alleged fraud before any public disclosure. 16. This provision’s legislative history indicates that information disclosed in response to a subpoena would not qualify as voluntary. such as a public disclosure of information or its voluntary provision to the government before filing a lawsuit.”27
Conclusion After years of receiving minimal judicial scrutiny. Young.
weeks” to “thirty days” would likely be reasonable. 76 F. Bank of Farmington. Volume 37. No. Made in the USA Foundation v. 334 (6th Cir. 11. a relator’s strict compliance with the precomplaint disclosure requirement promises to be the target of an ever-growing number of jurisdictional challenges in qui tam suits in which the basis of fraud allegations has PL been publicly disclosed. a private individual may initiate a False Claims Act action in the name of and on behalf of the United States. 608 (D. See United States ex rel.D. qui tam actions by federal employees have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because such employees act not as volunteers but as salaried employees whose job duties mandate disclosure of fraud as an element of employment. L. Aug. Burroughs v. 1996) (a statutory conditions precedent). REC.20 A relator cannot satisfy the statute’s jurisdictional requirements by establishing disclosure to the government after filing a complaint. 100 Stat. United States ex rel. Ackley v. Id. Detrick v. or days before will not do. 3. Inc. United States ex rel.S.S. the original-source requirement for pre-complaint disclosure has emerged as a significant factor in determining jurisdiction in qui tam actions. Ackley. Supp. as the lack of jurisdiction can be raised not only by the defendant but also by the government or even a court at any time.C. 5. because that is the rule Congress adopted.. 666 (D. but “a few moments. 11. a court applied a judicial “rule of reason” that “two
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.R. a plaintiff is encouraged not to dawdle. 17. Coleman v.. 76 F. Cal. False Claims Amendments Act. 1998) (holding that relator’s disclosure to Michigan agencies did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement for pre-complaint disclosure to the federal government). As a consequence.737 for fiscal year 2001. Pub. Supp. this requirement is consistent with the legislative purpose of encouraging relators to blow the whistle promptly and barring qui tam actions by an “individual who sits on the sidelines while others disclose the allegations that form the basis of her complaint. 8. §§ 3729–3732). Md. such jurisdictional challenges can prove especially treacherous. 10. 2d at 666. 680. 866 (7th Cir. United States ex rel. 3153 (1986) (generally codified at 31 U. 985 F. 160 F.21 Similarly. 76 F. § 3730(e)(4)(B). Department of Justice’s statistics show overall recoveries from qui tam actions of $1.. Daniel F.C.C.C. 1992). or by informing the agency or official responsible for the particular claim in question.S.18 In fact. 1999) (a jurisdictional prerequisite). Ind. 909 F. 1986) (statement of Sen.834 for fiscal year 2000 and $1. 18.S. 2000 WL 1357791 at 16 (S. 2000). the purpose of precomplaint disclosure implies that the government should have reasonable prior notice to consider information on which alleged fraud is based. hours.
at 608. 1995). 743–44 (9th Cir. 20. Luke’s Medical Center. 123 F. 166 F. See..3d at 943. McKenzie. 76 F.3d 675. Bellsouth Telecomm. U. McKenzie v. Inc. Rush-Presbyterian-St. 31 U. 1997). § 3730(e)(4)(B). International Business Machines Corp. Grant v. FPC-Boron Employees’ Club.S. 2001 WL 40807 at 5 (N. Chevron. it is pre-dated by the institution of the suit.
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION. n.C.D.3d at 866. 76 F. and cannot then serve its own purpose” of complying with the statutory requirements).g. United States ex rel. 909 F. Supp. Volume 37. Id. 22.D. United States ex rel.19. 105 F.. See United States ex rel. 690–91 (D. Number 4. Tex. 2001). Inc. 1997). See Bank of Farmington. 27.S. But see Coleman. Ill. Fine v. See Jones.. Detrick. 982 F. 461 (S. Wercinski v. 23. 985 F. 943 (6th Cir. 1997). Id. 25. Findley v. Cir.3d at 334. United States ex rel. 123 F. e. Ackley.10 (“if this letter is the disclosure statement..C. The Procurement Lawyer. Supp. 24. Ackley. 2d at 669–73. 2000 WL 1357791 at 15. 449. 2d at 668. 160 F.. See Made in the USA Foundation. 26.3d 935.3d 740. Supp..A. Supp. Supp. at 1017 (“the assessment of relator status should take into account all of the information the putative relator has communicated to the government prior to the filing of the action”). 21. Summer 2002
. 72 F.
Docassocfktype Articles 843 by Sandra A. Chambers4 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedReception 14 Caf Formby Anonymous TlYmhkPeople vs. Balanoby Iñigo Mathay Rojasestafaby Digna Laodenio BuracStanford Case: The Arrogance of the Receivers Deepens the Agony of Thousands of Innocent Families, Victims of the Fraud. by Jaime R. EscalonaWhistleblower Policy1by Francisco BraganzaSevillavs. Gocon by Frances Abigail BubanLAW485by Fatiha YusofTelfor Letterby cherylfelakFrancisco v Rojas Digestby Mickey OrtegaChina Bank vs. CAby Maricel Caranto Frias10-02-05 Bank of America: Repeat Request for Ed O'Keefe- General Counsel, and Brian Moynihan - President, to report Sandor Samuels to the Audit Committee for Fraud by Management sby Human Rights Alert, NGOUnited States v. Paul J. Leahy United States of America v. Timothy Smith United States of America v. Dantone, Inc., 445 F.3d 634, 3rd Cir. (2006)by Scribd Government DocsPATCO Construction Company Sues Bank After Cybertheftby Anupam TiwariClaim Formby Ashish Patel139 Jimenez v Averiaby Naomi QuimpoBatulanon vs Peopleby Anonymous hbUJnBRevised Rp vs.umaliby Tats YumulUnited States v. Key, 76 F.3d 350, 11th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Sherman Wayne Swearingen, 858 F.2d 1555, 11th Cir. (1988)by Scribd Government DocsWorkoutby pedquiigEmergency Motion to Remove Judicial Officer M. L. Fesak for Fraudby Judicial_FraudPalma Letter to Doarby Edward-Isaac DovereUnited States v. Stinson, 197 U.S. 200 (1905)by Scribd Government DocsChina Bank vs CAby Vanya Klarika NuqueMisappropriation of Assetsby MtanaUnited States v. Adam James Jeffery, 33 F.3d 63, 10th Cir. (1994)by Scribd Government DocsIn Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983 Marc Rich & Co. A.G., Intervenor-Appellant v. United States, 731 F.2d 1032, 2d Cir. (1984)by Scribd Government DocsEmergency Motion to Enjoin False Pretenses of "unripe" claims, Doc. # 29by MatthewFesakSimilar to Docassocfktype Articles 843Reception 14 Caf FormPeople vs. BalanoestafaStanford CaseWhistleblower Policy1Sevillavs. Gocon LAW485Telfor LetterFrancisco v Rojas DigestChina Bank vs. CA10-02-05 Bank of AmericaUnited States v. Paul J. Leahy United States of America v. Timothy Smith United States of America v. Dantone, Inc., 445 F.3d 634, 3rd Cir. (2006)PATCO Construction Company Sues Bank After CybertheftClaim Form139 Jimenez v AveriaBatulanon vs PeopleRevised Rp vs.umaliUnited States v. Key, 76 F.3d 350, 11th Cir. (1996)United States v. Sherman Wayne Swearingen, 858 F.2d 1555, 11th Cir. (1988)WorkoutEmergency Motion to Remove Judicial Officer M. L. Fesak for FraudPalma Letter to DoarUnited States v. Stinson, 197 U.S. 200 (1905)China Bank vs CAMisappropriation of AssetsUnited States v. Adam James Jeffery, 33 F.3d 63, 10th Cir. (1994)In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983 Marc Rich & Co. A.G., Intervenor-Appellant v. United States, 731 F.2d 1032, 2d Cir. (1984)Emergency Motion to Enjoin False Pretenses of "unripe" claims, Doc. # 29Price RewindStengle Rewarding Integrity LexisDocassocfktype Articles 843