In United States v. Anchor Mortgage Corp., 711 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2013) (No. 10-3122), the government sued the defendant mortgage brokerage firm, alleging it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly providing false information in connection with applications for home mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Following a bench trial, the court awarded treble damages of approximately $2.7 million, which it calculated by totaling the amounts the U.S. had paid out under its mortgage guarantees, trebling that amount, and then subtracting any amounts realized from selling the properties that secured the mortgage loans. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit rejected this “gross trebling” approach and held, as a matter of first impression, that “net trebling” was the appropriate method for calculating FCA damages. As applied to this case, the recoveries from the sales of the properties first should have been subtracted from the government’s out-of-pocket payments, and then that “net” amount trebled – a methodology that reduced the damages to less than $200,000. Although the FCA is silent as to which trebling method should be used, the court reasoned that “[b]asing damages on net loss is the norm in civil litigation” – citing both Clayton Act claims and common-law contract claims as examples. The court concluded there was no statutory language or policy that justified deviating from that norm in FCA cases.