Recent Posts tagged as 'Defense and Government Contracts'
Blog Post
07/17/2018
By Patrick M. Hromisin

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case concerning the “first-to-file” bar under the False Claims Act.

Blog Post
11/17/2017
By Justin C. Danilewitz and Andrew E. Bollinger

​In United States v. Luce, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a plaintiff suing under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., must demonstrate not merely that the government suffered a loss that it would not otherwise have suffered without the false claims (i.e., “but for” causation), but also that the government’s loss was the reasonably foreseeable result of the false claims (i.e., “proximate causation”).

Blog Post
09/28/2015
By Patrick M. Hromisin

In United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co. et al., a qui tam suit we previously covered here, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals once again ruled that defense contractor KBR Inc.’s internal investigation documents were privileged, rejecting for the second time the District Court ’s decision to the contrary.

Blog Post
06/12/2015
By Marisa R. De Feo

This month, a federal jury found former defense contractor Armet Armored Vehicles, Inc. not liable in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) lawsuit that alleged the company overcharged the federal government for armored vehicles by shipping defective vehicles and failing to deliver all the vehicles ordered. 

Blog Post
05/26/2015
By Patrick M. Hromisin

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued its ruling in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex. rel. Carter, a case we reported on previously (/blogs/whistleblower-wire/4528). The Court was asked to decide 1) whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WSLA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3287, applies to FCA claims to toll the statute of limitations when the U.S. is at war; and 2) whether the FCA’s first-to-file bar, found at 31 U.S.C.

Blog Post
04/03/2015
By Aaron Kornblith

The Securities and Exchange Commission this week announced its first victory in a case where it accused a defendant of stifling potential whistleblowers. Houston-based contractor KBR, Inc. was alleged to have used confidentiality agreements that could have prevented current or former employees from reporting securities violations to the commission without first getting approval from KBR's legal department.

Blog Post
02/19/2015
By Aaron Kornblith

In Brief:

  • The Fourth Circuit recently applied the theory of implied certification to resuscitate a False Claims Act lawsuit against a military contractor, holding that knowingly withholding information regarding noncompliance with a material contractual provision regarding marksmanship qualifications of security guards constituted a false claim within the meaning of the Act.
  • The court’s decision provides guidance as to whether a contractual provision may be deemed “material” for purposes of the False Claims Act, which requires that a false statement be “material” in order to support a claim.
Blog Post
01/14/2015
By Patrick M. Hromisin

On January 12, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex. rel. Carter, a pivotal False Claims Act case, which Saul Ewing’s White Collar and Government Enforcement Practice first discussed in August 2014.  In that case, which arises from a qui tam claim advanced by Benjamin Carter against his former employer, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), the court is considering two important issues.

Pages