Defending FCA Actions Related to Pandemic Programs
There will likely be some fraud in connection with the pandemic-related programs that should be pursued by the DOJ and the Inspectors General, who have said they will keep close eyes on these programs. They will have no shortage of targets, given the many recipients of government funds, and the breadth of the requisite certifications.
May 22, 2020 at 08:50 AM
5 minute read
This article appeared in Business Crimes Bulletin, an ALM/Law Journal Newsletters publication that features the news and analysis you need to stay on top of the fast-changing, multi-faceted world of financial and white-collar crime.
With the federal government appropriating more than $2 trillion for businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, plaintiffs' lawyers, regulators and politicians have trumpeted the search for whistleblowers — many of whom will try to cash in on perceived fraud in the funding programs created by the CARES Act and other enactments. Indeed, the threat of False Claims Act (FCA) liability is looming large.
The FCA authorizes private individuals (relators) to file lawsuits on behalf of the federal government (qui tam suits), alleging that the defendant fraudulently obtained government funds. These suits threaten the defendant with treble damages and large financial penalties — and are very lucrative for relators, who can receive a sizable bounty of up to 30% of the recovery, and their lawyers, who can obtain attorneys' fees. With so many business suddenly receiving government funds, the relators' bar is eager for the possible FCA suits in the months and years ahead.
Congress and the White House rushed out these programs with ill-defined requirements. In some cases, guidance was issued after applications for the funds were already submitted, and even after funds were received. There are bound to be reasonable disagreements over what the funding terms and conditions require, and such good faith conduct typically will not result in FCA liability.
That said, there will likely be some fraud in connection with the pandemic-related programs that should be pursued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Inspectors General, who have said they will keep close eyes on these programs. Nonetheless, history has shown that the relators' bar will drive most of the cases and will often overreach. They will have no shortage of targets, given the many recipients of government funds, and the breadth of the requisite certifications.
The FCA, however, prohibits only a knowing violation of the law, which requires reckless or intentional misconduct. The statute is not designed to cover reasonable, though erroneous, determinations, as might result from ambiguous guidelines. Nor should minor regulatory foot faults cause FCA liability, given the statute's strict materiality requirements.
This should give businesses receiving federal funds and financial institutions processing these funding requests some comfort — although relators still may not be deterred from filing suit. For example, the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) requires borrowers to have certified that "the current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant." Even with the government's recent "clarification" that applicants must "tak[e] into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business," relators may disagree with reasonable, good-faith interpretations of this standard, e.g., the meaning of "significantly detrimental to the business" and "ability to access other sources of liquidity." There may also be disagreements over whether the revised standard (which did not come from Congress) comports with the CARES Act, or whether it can be applied retroactively for purposes of FCA liability. And so on.
Also arguably open-ended is the PPP provision that applicants, "to the extent feasible," will purchase only "American-made equipment and products." What constitutes "feasible," and what does it mean to be "American-made"?
Although businesses may develop sound understandings of these and other terms — both for the PPP and other funding programs — the same terms could also be leveraged by opportunistic relators. It is thus essential that a business think carefully and critically about these and other provisions when applying for funds or retaining these funds. A reasonable, good-faith understanding of the terms should provide a sound defense if a relator or regulator comes knocking.
But because relators will be focusing on these loans and payments — and because these questions will often need to be litigated — it will be advantageous to address these issues now. Businesses would be well-advised to document their compliance with the terms governing any received funds, as well as their understanding of what those terms require. And businesses should also maintain documentation and build out their files supporting eligibility for funding as well as compliance with any requirements that seem a close call.
For many businesses, the funds provided by the government can be a critical lifeline in this difficult time — but can also risk a FCA suit that would itself be an existential threat. Accepting and retaining this money with care, and preparing now for possible investigations and claims to come, are essential.
*****
Steve Sozio ([email protected]) is a partner in Jones Day's Cleveland office and practice leader of the Firm's Health Care & Life Sciences Practice.
Rebecca Martin ([email protected]) is a partner in Jones Day's New York office and the Firm's Health Care & Life Sciences Practice.
Rajeev Muttreja ([email protected]) is a partner in Jones Day's New York office and the Firm's Issues & Appeals Practice.
Mark Rotatori ([email protected]) is a partner in Jones Day's Chicago office and the Firm's Business & Tort Litigation Practice. The views and opinions set forth herein are the personal views or opinions of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect views or opinions of the law firm with which they are associated.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMany Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readLife Sciences M&A Set to Boom, Litigation to Remain Steady Under New Trump Admin
5 minute read'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
Inside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright', Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 2Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
- 3Lock-Maker's Veteran GC Takes Old Job Back After Successor Lasts Just 3 Months
- 4Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 5HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250