Tag Archives: gorey

United Technologies Corporation Liable for Over $473 Million for Inflating Prices on Aircraft Engines Sold to Air Force

Posted on by
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found United Technologies Corporation liable for over $473 million in damages and penalties arising out of a contract to provide the Air Force with fighter aircraft engines for F-15 and F-16 aircraft between 1985 and 1990, the Justice Department announced today.  United Technologies, which is based in Connecticut, provides a broad range of high-technology products and services to the global aerospace and building systems industries.

“The department will relentlessly pursue justice against those who knowingly submit false claims to the government and abuse the public contracting process,” said Stuart Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.  “It is vital that companies who do business with the government provide full and accurate information, and if they do not, they will pay the consequences.”

The government alleged that UTC’s proposed prices for the engine contract misrepresented how UTC calculated those prices, resulting in the government paying hundreds of millions more than it otherwise would have paid for the engines.  Specifically, the government alleged that UTC failed to include in its price proposal historical discounts that it received from suppliers, and instead knowingly used outdated information that excluded such discounts.

The government filed suit against UTC in 1999 under the False Claims Act and the common law, and those claims were tried, without a jury, in 2004.  An initial decision by the district court in 2008 found UTC liable under the False Claims Act, but did not award any damages.  The district court also dismissed the government’s common law claims.  That decision was appealed by both the government and UTC.  In 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that UTC was liable under the False Claims Act, but reversed and remanded the case to the district court to recalculate the government’s damages and to reconsider the government’s common law claims.

In yesterday’s ruling, the district court awarded the government False Claims Act damages and penalties of $364 million, which is the highest recovery obtained by the government in a case tried under the Act.  The court also awarded an additional $109 million in damages on the government’s common law claims.  With the addition of prejudgment interest on the latter claims, which the court has yet to calculate, the government anticipates that the total judgment against United Technologies could be well in excess of half a billion dollars.    This case is being handled by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.  The lawsuit is captioned United States of America v. United Technologies Corp., No. 3:99-cv-093 (S.D. Ohio).

GGLLP Alert: Changes to the False Claims Act Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Posted on by

Changes to the False Claims Act Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) made a number of significant changes to the False Claims Act, including the following:

Original Source Requirement.  A plaintiff may now overcome the public disclosure if he or she qualifies as an “original source.”  The PPACA revised the definition of this term.  Previously, an original source had to have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations [were] based.”  Now, an original source may be a person who merely has “knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions.”  See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(B).

Changes to the Public Disclosure Bar.  Previously, relators were precluded from proceeding if there had been a public disclosure of information.  This disclosure could have occurred in news reports, a Freedom of Information Act response, court proceedings or in any number of ways.  Thus, the public disclosure bar often served as a basis for dismissal.  The PPACA amended the False Claims Act to allow the government to have the final say on whether a court could properly dismiss a case based on a public disclosure.  The statute now provides that “the court shall dismiss an action unless opposed by the Government, if substantially the same allegations or transaction alleged in the action or claim were publicly disclosed.”  See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(A).

Overpayments.  In the prior law, there was confusion as to the “obligation” under the False Claims Act not to retain overpayments and when such overpayments had to be returned after their discovery.  Now, under the PPACA, overpayments under Medicare and Medicaid must be reported and returned within 60 days of discovery, or the date a corresponding hospital report is due.  The failure timely to report and return an overpayment exposes a provider to False Claims Act liability.

Statutory Anti-Kickback Liability. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b) (AKS), makes it a crime for any person to solicit, receive, offer or pay remuneration (monetary or otherwise) in exchange for referring patients to receive certain services that are paid for by the government.  Previously, many courts had interpreted the False Claims Act to mean that claims submitted as a result of AKS violations were false claims and therefore gave rise to liability under the False Claims Act (in addition to AKS penalties). Even though this was the majority rule, some courts held otherwise and the issue was always present in every case.  The PPACA changed the language of the AKS to provide that claims submitted in violation of the AKS automatically constitute false claims for purposes of the False Claims Act.  Further, the new language provides that “a person need not have actual knowledge … or specific intent to commit a violation” of the AKS.

GeyerGorey LLP Establishes 24/7 Client Emergency Hotline

Posted on by

GeyerGorey LLP announced today that it had established a 24/7 Client Emergency Hotline that will always be answered “live” by a GeyerGorey attorney.  Current clients should expect to be provided with this telephone number in a separate, confidential communication.

Press Release