Insights

United States Attorneys’ Offices recently announced a number of False Claims Act (FCA) settlements arising out of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). These settlements reveal several trends that PPP loan recipients should be aware of.

On December 18, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced a $680,000 False Claims Act (FCA) settlement with Lafayette RE Management LLC (Lafayette) in connection with the real estate investment firm’s receipt of a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan at the height of the pandemic.  Crowell has previously reported on DOJ’s steady pursuit of PPP cases which have resulted in FCA settlements based on issues such as affiliation (discussed here) and ineligibility under the program’s rules (discussed here), but the Lafayette settlement is the first time that the government has intervened in a case based on the economic necessity certification that all PPP borrowers had to make on the initial loan application.  

Yesterday, less than an hour into the first day of confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Pam Bondi, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) questioned Bondi on her commitment to defending the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) if she is confirmed.  Bondi responded that she would “of course” defend the constitutionality of the FCA and that she understands the importance of whistleblowers, the FCA’s protections, and “the money it brings back to our country.”  Senator Grassley’s questioning indicated he was focused on the FCA’s qui tam provisions, as it comes on the heels of U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, Inc., -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), a first-of-its-kind decision from Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions improperly appoint a relator “an officer of the United States” in violation of the Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution, and are therefore unconstitutional.  Senator Grassley appeared to be seeking assurances about Bondi’s willingness to ensure the Department of Justice continues to defend the FCA’s qui tam provisions and commit the resources necessary to do so.

On October 22, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) will pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by failing to comply with contractually mandated cybersecurity requirements by the Department of Defense (DoD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  The announcement marks the most recent settlement under DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative although, unlike prior settlements, there is no allegation of a cybersecurity incident or breach that was related to or caused by the contractor’s alleged noncompliance.

In Chugach Federal Solutions, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62712, et al., the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that a contractor could recover its costs for having to quarantine personnel in accordance with government-imposed COVID safety requirements, because the underlying contract contemplated that the contractor would be compensated for complying with any changes to health and safety requirements.

In a novel False Claims Act (FCA) ruling, on September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida upended decades of FCA jurisprudence in declaring the qui tam provisions of the FCA unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024). This decision follows Justice Thomas’ dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023), where he posited, “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private relators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation.” While Justice Thomas’ implicit constitutional challenge was not entirely new to FCA practitioners, including it in his Polansky dissent, with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in a concurring opinion noting their agreement that the Court should consider the constitutional questions in an appropriate case, swung wide open a door of opportunity for defendants and their counsel to attempt to dismiss FCA qui tam suits on constitutional grounds. Judge Mizelle’s decision in Zafirov is the first of its kind to actually dismiss a qui tam suit on constitutional grounds, and will likely lead to an avalanche of similar motions in nearly every non-intervened lawsuit brought by a relator.

As the primary civil enforcement statute for investigating and remedying fraud in connection with United States government programs, the False Claims Act (FCA) has resulted in more than $75 billion in recoveries of government funds since 1986. The FCA imposes liability on any person or entity that knowingly submits false claims or certifications to the government or improperly retains money owed to the U.S. government.

On June 17, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $11.3 million False Claims Act (FCA) settlement that touches on two key enforcement priorities:  the DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative and pandemic-related fraud.  This settlement, the largest under the Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative to date, resolved allegations that Guidehouse Inc. (Guidehouse) and its subcontractor, Nan McKay and Associates (Nan McKay), violated the FCA because they failed to conduct pre‑production cybersecurity testing on New York State’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) technology product before public launch, and that Guidehouse used an unapproved third-party data cloud software program to store personally identifiable information (PII).

In Konecranes Nuclear Equip. Servs. LLC, ASBCA, Nos. 62797, 62827 (May 7, 2024), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) awarded approximately $4.9 million in delay-related breach damages to Konecranes Nuclear Equipment Services (Konecranes) due to the Navy’s breach of its implied duty to not interfere on a commercial-item contract for the provision of 25-ton general purpose portal cranes.

On May 1, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Insight Global LLC (Insight), an international staffing and services company, will pay $2.7 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by failing to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to protect personal health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) under its contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) to provide staffing for COVID-19 contact tracing services.  Although contracts with state agencies generally fall outside the FCA’s ambit, PADOH paid Insight using funds received from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—bringing the contract within the FCA’s scope. 

A recently-announced False Claims Act (FCA) settlement illustrates how government contractors and other FCA defendants can take advantage of a Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that rewards voluntary self-disclosure to, and subsequent cooperation with, the government.

2023 brought many important False Claims Act developments for companies with business involving government funds.  While overall recoveries remained down compared to pre-2022 levels, the total number of settlements and judgments exceeded any prior year.  Those settlements and judgments also highlight areas of particular focus for the Government, including cybersecurity compliance, pandemic fraud, and small business fraud, among others.  Of particular note, 2023 saw the U.S. Supreme Court issue decisions concerning the Government’s authority to dismiss qui tam actions and the critical element of scienter/knowledge that will have wide-reaching impact.  The courts of appeals also issued significant decisions on damages, materiality, and more.  Crowell attorneys discuss these highlights and others in a "Feature Comment" published in The Government Contractor.

A False Claims Act (FCA) settlement recently announced by the U.S. Department of Justice stands at the intersection of two evolving trends:  DOJ’s increasing focus on cybersecurity lapses by government contractors as part of its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, and DOJ policies incentivizing corporations to voluntarily self-disclose violations of federal law.

Although the COVID-19 public health declaration officially ended in May, government investigations of pandemic relief fraud are from over. As observed in a recent report by the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General, investigations will likely ensue for years to come in light of Congress’s decision to extend the statute of limitations to ten years for pandemic relief fraud.    

On June 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., held that the Government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam suit over a relator’s objection so long as it intervenes in the litigation, either during the initial seal period or afterward.  The Court also held that, when handling such a motion, district courts should apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a), the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits.  And in a dissent that—in the long run—may end up being more impactful than the Court’s holding, Justice Thomas (joined in a concurring opinion by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett) questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions themselves.  

On April 3, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey announced a settlement with a public relations firm to resolve allegations that the New Jersey company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by receiving a $2 million second-draw loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to which the company was not entitled.  The public relations firm had also sought and received forgiveness for the full amount of the loan.

Next Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the highest court in the land will hear arguments in what is poised to be the most influential False Claims Act (FCA) case since the landmark decision in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016).  On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear two consolidated appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 9 F.4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021) and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., 30 F.4th 649 (7th Cir. 2022).  The Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching ramifications for FCA cases involving ambiguous contractual or regulatory requirements and may also provide benchmarks for assessing the key element of scienter across all FCA cases.  

2022 was a busy year for the False Claims Act.  While recoveries were down, new cases reached a record mark, and settlements addressed multiple important and developing enforcement areas, from cybersecurity to small business fraud, bid rigging, Trade Agreements Act compliance, pandemic fraud, and more.  Of particular note, the U.S. Supreme Court held argument concerning the Government’s authority to dismiss qui tam actions, and it will soon hear consolidated cases as to the critical element of scienter.  And circuit courts issued key decisions involving pleading standards and merits issues.  These highlights and more are discussed by C&M attorneys in a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor. 

In a prime example of the significant interplay between the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and the False Claims Act (“FCA”), a federal jury has returned a verdict of more than $43 million in damages against Cameron-Ehlen Group, Inc., which does business as “Precision Lens,” and its owner.  The verdict in this long-running and closely watched fraud case out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota comes after a six-week trial, with the jury ultimately finding that the defendants paid kickbacks to ophthalmic surgeons to induce their use of defendants’ products in cataract surgeries reimbursed by Medicare, resulting in the submission of 64,575 false claims between 2006 and 2015.  While the jury calculated damages at the massive sum of $43 million, that number may grow exponentially after the court applies the FCA’s treble-damages calculation (increasing the liability to $129 million) and statutory penalties of between $5,500 and $11,000 for each of the 64,575 claims (resulting in additional penalties of $355 million to $710 million).  All told, the total FCA liability is expected to range between $485 million and $839 million.