In what could be the most significant development for False Claims Act (FCA) jurisprudence since Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, on January 13, 2023, the US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a defendant that relied on an objectively reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law acts “knowingly” in violation of the False Claims Act.
The FCA is a federal statute that was enacted in 1863 to redress defense contractor fraud during the Civil War. It has become an expansive and powerful tool that the government relies on to seek substantial damages and penalties (treble damages and per-claim penalties) and that whistleblowers use to recover substantial bounties. The FCA can be applied to virtually any entity that directly or indirectly receives government funds.
To be liable under the FCA, a defendant must act “knowingly,” which the FCA defines as acting with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Specific intent to defraud is not required. Because FCA liability is frequently premised on the alleged violation of complex statutes, regulations, and contracts, defendants often argue that their interpretation of these requirements is reasonable, in an effort to negate the essential element of scienter.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve what petitioners contend is a circuit split about whether a defendant can knowingly violate the FCA if its conduct is “...
Dish Wireless LLC agreed to pay roughly $17 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act, common law, and the Communications Act of 1934 relating to claims submitted to Fed...