We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 30

Defendant wins False Claims Act trial after the government kills $8.9m settlement agreement negotiated by relator; affirmed by fourth circuit
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • April 29 2011

In United States ex rel. Ubl v. IIF Data Solutions, Case No. 09-2280, 2011 WL 1474783 (4th Cir. 2011), the Fourth Circuit affirmed a verdict for a defendant in a False Claims Act trial in a case where the Government declined to intervene and held the following: (1) the district court properly refused to enforce a settlement agreement; (2) the district court correctly admitted “government knowledge” evidence at trial; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to the defendant


E.D.N.Y. court allows government to contact Amgen employees outside the presence of Amgen's counsel
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2011

Amgen alleged that government lawyers violated Rule 4.2 of the New York Code of Professional Responsibility by communicating with present and former Amgen employees in connection with a grand jury proceeding and False Claims Act qui tam litigation


11th Circuit affirms dismissal of FCA claims against Lockheed Martin regarding allegedly defective coatings on F-22 stealth aircraft
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2011

Former senior engineer at Lockheed Martin Corp., Darrol Olsen, filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against Lockheed, alleging that Lockheed used inferior and defective coatings on F22 aircraft


Relators run the risk that complaints in voluntarily dismissed cases may be unsealed
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • October 21 2011

Earlier this week we reported on a case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in which the court unsealed a relator's complaint after the relator voluntarily dismissed it, holding that "the rationale behind sealing FCA cases is to allow the United States ample time to investigate the allegations, and the FCA does not contain any language that suggests the purpose of sealing a case is to protect the relator’s identity.”


New York Court of Appeals decision could give added life to "life settlements" industry
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • November 22 2010

On November 17, 2010, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, issued a 5-2 decision in Kramer v. Phoenix Life Insurance Company


District of Massachusetts court allows FCA action premised on violations of anti-kickback statute to continue
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • March 22 2011

Two relators, Bernard Lisitza and David Kammerer, filed separate False Claims Act qui tam actions against Johnson & Johnson, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Health Care System (collectively, “J & J”


Amgen seeks Supreme Court review of implied certification theory of liability under the False Claims Act
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • October 6 2011

The U.S. Courts of Appeals have been wrestling with the reach of the False Claims Act when the actual claim submitted to the government is not “factually false”


Tennessee court holds self-reporting to government does not bar relator action
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2010

The federal court in the Western District of Tennessee, a court in the Sixth Circuit, held as a matter of first impression that self-reporting to the government of failures to comply with federal law does not constitute a "public disclosure" which could bar a lawsuit brought by a relator under the False Claims Act


NJ appellate court holds that NJ False Claims Act cannot reach conduct occurring before March 2008
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2011

The New Jersey Appellate Division for the Superior Court, Mercer County, recently held that the New Jersey False Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:32C1 to 15 and N.J.S.A. 2A:32C17 to 18, which was enacted on January 1, 2008 and made effective on March 13, 2008, does not apply retroactively to allegedly false claims submitted prior to the statute’s effective date


Iowa district court holds FERA is not retroactive in U.S. v. Hawley
  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • USA
  • August 24 2011

In two prior posts, we reported on a case which an insurance company was deemed subject to liability under the False Claims Act even when it did not directly submit claims to the federal government