the new false claims act fera: the fraud enforcement and recovery act of 2009
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The New False Claims Act
FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009
![Page 2: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Impetus for FERASeveral relatively recent court
decisions narrowed, or threatened to narrow, the scope of the FCA
Congress became concerned that the effectiveness of the FCA had become impaired, a concern that was heightened by the passage of TARP and stimulus legislation
To underscore this point, Congress labeled the FCA Amendments of FERA “Clarifications to the False Claims Act to Reflect the Original Intent of the Law.”
![Page 3: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Impetus for FERA cont.One of the most successful tools for combating
waste and abuse in Government spending has been the False Claims Act (FCA) … . The effectiveness of the FCA has recently been undermined by court decisions limiting the scope of the law and allowing subcontractors and non-governmental entities to escape responsibility for proven frauds. In order to respond to these decisions, certain provisions of the FCA must be corrected and clarified in order to protect the Federal assistance and relief funds expended in response to the current economic crisis.S. Rep. No. 111-10, 111th Cong., 1st Session 10 (March 23, 2009) (Senate Report)
![Page 4: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
FERAIn May of 2009,
Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (“FERA”)
![Page 5: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
FACTS: defective rail cars provided to AmtrakDefendant argued that the present requirement of
old § 3729(a)(1) was not satisfied because Amtrak is not the Government
The relator argued that a claim to a grantee like Amtrak is “effectively presented to the United States”
HELD: No FCA liability because “claims were presented only to Amtrak for payment, which is not the Government.”Holding seemingly approved by SC in Allison
Engine.
![Page 6: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 128 S.Ct. 2123 (2008)
FACTS: subcontractor submitted certifications of compliance with Navy specifications to prime contractorDefendant subcontractor argued that it did not
intend the government to pay a false claimHELD: A subcontractor violates old Sections
3729(a)(2) and (a)(3) only if it specifically intends to get the Government to pay a false claim
Also held that, unlike Section (a)(1), Section (a)(2) lacked a presentment requirement (implicitly approving Totten’s treatment of Section (a)(1) as including a hard presentment requirement).
![Page 7: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 444 F.Supp.2d 678 (E.D. Va.), rev’d, 562 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2009)FACTS: false claims submitted to Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) by Iraqi contractors. United States administered the funds on behalf of Iraqi people.Defendants argued that no U.S. funds were paid,
because payments were from the CPAHELD: FCA liability does not apply to claims for
funds over which the U.S. is merely a custodian. Also, could not prove presentment because CPA not U.S. entity.
Although reversed by 4th Cir. one month prior to FERA, case is specifically noted in Senate Report detailing purposes of FERA
![Page 8: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
United States ex rel. Cosens v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 469 F.3d 263 (2d. Cir. 2006)FACTS: False claims submitted no later than 1995,
Government complaint in intervention filed in 2002, relator’s complaint was under partial seal since 1994.Defendant argued 6-year statute of limitations
HELD: the Government could only go back to 1996 claims (six years from 2002)
Even prior to FERA, Baylor was not being followed by most courts. See United States ex rel. Serrano v. The Oaks Diagnostics, Inc., 568 F.Supp.2d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (listing other cases). But still animated FERA.
![Page 9: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Case Law Questions Addressed by FERA1. Presentment: Does FCA liability attach only to
claims presented to an officer or employee of the United States? (Totten/Allison Engine)
2. Intent: Is a defendant liable for making a false statement even where it is made without any specific intent to get a false claim paid? (Allison Engine)
3. Federal Funds: Does the FCA require that the Government hold title to the funds used to pay a claim? (Custer Battles)
4. Relation Back: Is the Government’s relation back of claims limited by the statute of limitations? (Baylor)
![Page 10: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
SPOILER ALERTthe answer is NO to each
![Page 11: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1. PRESENTMENTFERA functionally eliminates presentment
requirement; focus now on purpose/source of funds
Section 3729(b)(2) defines “claim” to include a request or demand presented to:An “officer, employee, or agent” of the United States; or
A “contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or property is to be spent or used on the Government’s behalf or to advance a Government program or interest” and
U.S. provided/will provide any portion of the money paid; or
U.S. will reimburse the contractor, grantee, or recipient
![Page 12: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
2. INTENTFERA overrules Allison Engine’s holding that
liability under old Sections 3729(a)(2) and (a)(3) exists only where a defendant intends TO GET the Government to pay a false claim.
New Sections 3729(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) omit the terms “get” and “getting,” replacing them with the term “material”
“Material” is defined as “having a natural tendency to influence, or to be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property”
![Page 13: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
INTENT cont.Thus, new Section (a)(1)(B) provides liability for
any person who:“knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or
used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim” (emphasis added)
Significantly, the materiality requirement is a “soft” materiality … need only be capable of influencing payment decision.
Arguably eviscerates conditions of payment v. conditions of participation dichotomy. See United States ex rel. Connor v. Salina Reg. Health Ctr., Inc., 543 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2008) (drawing distinction)
![Page 14: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
INTENT cont. (still more?! What the …)
Important to emphasize that even before FERA, the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” are explicitly defined so as to make clear that “no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.”
Deliberate ignorance is sufficient for liability to attach
![Page 15: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
3. FEDERAL FUNDSFERA endorses the 4th Circuit’s opinion in Custer
Battles
Definition of “claim” makes it clear that FCA liability attaches even where the U.S. administers funds, “whether or not the United States takes title to the money or property.” (Section 3729(b)(2))
Thus, claims for funds administered by U.S. are actionable, subject to restrictions noted previously (gov. purpose and provision/reimbursement of funds)
![Page 16: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
FEDERAL FUNDS Cont.Interesting Questions For Future Litigation …
What are and how do you measure the damages (as opposed to penalties) for false claims on funds merely administered by the Government?
What about block grants or stimulus that merely supplement a recipient’s funds (e.g., funds provided to supplement budget shortfalls—revenue sharing)? Is the purpose anything other than revenue sharing? What is the proof?
![Page 17: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
4. RELATION BACKFERA rejects the Second Circuit’s Baylor
Decision Provides for relation back of the Government’s
complaint for statute of limitations purposesAdds to Section 3731(b): “For statute of limitations
purposes, [the Government’s complaint in intervention] shall relate back to the filing date of the complaint of the person who originally brought the action, to the extent that the claim of the Government arises out of the conduct, transactions, or occurrences set forth, or attempted to be set forth, in the prior complaint of that person.”
![Page 18: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
FERA … is this stuff exciting or what?!
Stay calm, more fun to come
![Page 19: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
OTHER CHANGES TO FCA FERA also
Expands Conspiracy Provisions
Expands Reverse False Claims Provision
Permits Service of Relator’s Complaint on State or Local Entity
Expanded CIDs
![Page 20: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
EXPANDED CONSPIRACY PROVISIONSFERA makes the conspiracy provision
applicable to all theories of FCA liabilityUnder old FCA, conspiracy provision did
not apply to reverse false claims.Now, Section 3729(a)(1)(C) attaches
liability to any person who“conspires to commit a violation of
subparagraphs (A), (B), (D), (E), (F), or (G)”
![Page 21: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
EXPANDED REVERSE FALSE CLAIMS PROVISION
FERA expands the reverse false claims provision to encompass the knowing avoidance of an obligation—without any false statement or record required for liability
Section 3729(1)(a)(G) now attaches liability to any person that “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government”
Significantly, Section 3729(b)(3) defines “obligation” to include “the retention of an overpayment”
![Page 22: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
EXPANDED REVERSE FALSE CLAIMS Cont.Collectively, these changes mean that a person
who knowingly (which includes deliberate ignorance) and improperly retains an overpayment by the Government is in violation of the FCA. No act of concealment is necessary.
INTERESTING ISSUES:When pursue administrative remedies rather than
FCA litigation?Reverse exhaustion requirement?Of note, many programs (including Medicare) do
not have any general requirement that overpayments be returned.
![Page 23: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
SERVICE OF QUI TAM COMPLAINT ON STATES OR LOCALITIESSection 3732(c) allows for service of a
relator’s complaint on State or local governments if named as co-plaintiff’s in the suit
Such service does not violate the seal and does not require court permission.
![Page 24: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
EXPANDED CIDsAuthorizes the Attorney General to delegate
authority to issue Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs)
Permits CID information to be used for any official use. “Official Use” is defined to be any use that is consistent with law, DOJ regulations and policies, and use in connection with communications between DOJ and a Federal, State, or local government agency, as well as communications with Government investigators, auditors, consultants and experts, among others.
![Page 25: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Effective Date and Retroactive ApplicationAmendments apply prospectively (i.e. to conduct
occurring after the date of enactment), except:Amendments relating to Relation Back, Service on
Local and State Governments, and CID provisions Applies to all “cases” pending on the date of enactment
Amendments correcting Allison Engine’s Intent Requirement (changing old Section 3729(a)(2) by inserting “material” instead of “to get”) Effective June 7, 2008 (two days before Allison Engine)
and applies to all “claims” then pending
![Page 26: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Effective Date and Retroactive Application (Cont)Two Issues:
Difference between retroactive application to “cases” v. “claims” Courts have thus far indicated “claims” means those claims
submitted to the Government, not claims pending in court. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Hopper v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 588 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Science Applications Int’l Corp., 653 F.Supp.2d 87 (D. D.C. 2009)
Does retroactive application violate Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution (clarification v. making conduct illegal after the fact)?
![Page 27: The New False Claims Act FERA: The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022051401/56649ed45503460f94be46cf/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
QUESTIONS?