False Claims Act Investigations & Defense

Arnold & Porter's False Claims Act practice has unparalleled breadth and depth of experience defending life science companies and healthcare providers, government contractors, financial institutions, and other companies that receive federal funds in FCA investigations and litigation. Led by former federal prosecutors and accomplished civil litigators who work closely with the firm's deep regulatory bench, our team has successfully persuaded the government not to proceed, but where a case is inevitable, we tirelessly work to meet our clients' objectives, effectively negotiating favorable settlements or vigorously defending in court, at trial, on appeal, and even in the Supreme Court.

The government and relators wield the FCA to reap billions of dollars in penalties and damages each year. The monetary stakes are high as is the threat of exclusion, suspension or debarment. So when the government comes calling, you can rely on the seasoned, expert and practical advice that we provide and our clients have come to expect.

Successes in High-Stakes Litigation and Establishing FCA Precedents: In addition to our impressive record of dismissals and declinations, we have established important precedents on key issues, including Escobar materiality, definition of "claim," first-to-file bar, and fraud in the inducement.

Unique White Collar Criminal Defense Expertise and Comprehensive Representation: Our team includes dozens of former government attorneys who leverage their government FCA, fraud and trial experience. Our experience also enables us to improve compliance programs, evaluate potential criminal issues and handle State AG actions.

Full Range of FCA Expertise: We have a wealth of FCA experience representing companies across industries. We draw on our intimate familiarity with the relevant regulatory regimes and constantly evolving FCA case law to provide practical and strategic legal advice.

Read our blog for insightful commentary and the latest news on FCA recoveries as they happen.
Qui Notes Blog

Experience Highlights

  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis Corporation in the successful defense of a qui tam suit brought in the District of Massachusetts by multiple relators, alleging off-label and kickback claims in connection with the asthma medication Xolair®. On a motion to dismiss, we obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims. United States ex rel. Garcia et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al., 06 Civ. 10465 (WGY); aff’d United States ex rel. Kelly et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al., 827 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2016). Relators then filed suits in Massachusetts and New York under state FCA statutes, and we successfully obtained dismissal of those cases.
  • Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in winning dismissals of two False Claims Act qui tam suits concerning promotional activities, US ex rel. JKJ Partnership 2011, LLP v. Sanofi-Aventis US Inc., et al., 315 F. Supp. 3d 817 (DNJ 2018); US ex rel. Dickson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., 332 F. Supp. 3d 927 (DNJ 2017); and in defending against related state attorney general consumer protection actions.
  • Eli Lilly & Co., AstraZeneca and UCB in three federal qui tam litigations filed in Texas, Washington and Illinois, respectively, alleging violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA through the use of nurse educator and reimbursement support services. US ex. rel. Health Choice Alliance, LLC, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, Inc., et al., Civ. Action No. 5:17-CV-123; US ex rel. SCEF, LLC v. AstraZeneca PLC, Civ. Action 17-CV-1328; US ex rel. CIMZNHCA, LLC v. UCB, INC., No. 17-CV-765-SMY-MAB). The Eli Lilly and Astra Zeneca cases have been dismissed.
  • Pfizer in FCA cases filed in the Southern District of New York and District of Rhode Island by the same relator against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers, alleging violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA through payment of service fees. US ex rel. John R. Borzilleri, MD et al. vs. Abbie, Inc., et al., 15 Civ. 7881 (SDNY); US ex rel. John R. Borzilleri, MD et al. vs. Bayer AG, et al., No. 14 Civ. 00031 (D RI). Both cases were dismissed.
  • Dermatologic surgeon in winning a complete acquittal after a five-week federal criminal jury trial on charges of healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft, and securing a full dismissal of related FCA allegations. US v. Bajoghli, No. 1:14-CR-278 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2015); US ex rel. Hoffman v. Skin & Laser Surgery Center, PC, No. 1:15-CV-1601 (ED Va.).
  • Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) in qui tam action in which, after dismissal by trial court and reversal by circuit court, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of KBR that Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act does not suspend statute of limitation for civil fraud actions, including the FCA. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al., v. US, ex rel. Carter, 575 US 650 (2015). The case was dismissed on remand and dismissal was affirmed on appeal. US ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., et al., 866 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2017), cert denied, 86 USL.W. 3638 (US June 25, 2018).
  • Fluor Corporation in persuading DOJ to decline intervention, after an extensive investigation, in a qui tam action brought by multiple relators relating to management of hundreds of millions of dollars-worth of materials in a contingency contract performed in Afghanistan (DSC 2018).
  • KBR in successful defense of FCA fraud and Anti-Kickback Act case alleging more than $1.5 billion in damages. We won dismissal of the FCA claim prior to trial. After trial, the court found for KBR on all claims except one that resulted in low-value settlement and all fraud rulings have been affirmed on appeal. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. US, 99 Fed. Cl. 488 (2011), aff'd, 728 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013), opinion corrected on denial of reh'g, 563 F. App'x 769 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
  • Global supplier of telecommunications products in successful defense of qui tam action regarding its provision of services to schools and libraries under the federal E-Rate program. Although the district court denied a motion to dismiss, the Fifth Circuit reversed and held on an issue of first impression that funds from the E-Rate program are not "provided by" the United States for FCA purposes. US ex rel. Shupe v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 759 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • StoneCastle Securities LLC in a qui tam suit alleging that defendant financial services firms unlawfully induced the New Mexico state retirement and investment funds to make investments in certain financial instruments in exchange for political contributions to organizations associated with the governor of New Mexico. State of New Mexico, ex rel. Frank C. Foy and Suzanne B. Foy v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, et al., No. D 101 CV 2008 1895.
Subscribe
Subscribe Link

Email Disclaimer