qui tam actions

Subscribe to qui tam actions via RSS

Well-advised companies know that among their key corporate risks are potential liability exposures arising from or related to cybersecurity. A recent U.S. Department of Justice enforcement action highlights the fact that corporate cybersecurity risk may take a number of forms, including, as was the case in the recent matter, potential False Claims Act (FCA) liability for cybersecurity vulnerabilities in products sold to the federal government. The fact that the recent case, involving life sciences company Illumina, settled for $9.8 million, underscores the seriousness of this cybersecurity-related liability FCA exposure.Continue Reading Cybersecurity and False Claims Act Liability Exposure

In prior posts (most recently here), I have noted the risk to companies in the current global trade environment of governmental enforcement actions relating to the collection and payment of tariffs. Indeed, in a May 12, 2025, memo, Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti identified “trade and customs fraud, including tariff evasion” as the Department of Justice’s number two corporate criminal enforcement priority.

In the latest sign that the Trump administration is ready to aggressively deploy its enforcement tools to ensure compliance with tariffs and other trade goals, the U.S. government has filed a complaint in intervention in a pending qui tam action against a South Carolina furniture company, alleging that the company used false documentation to underreport the price of furniture the company imported from China, resulting in tariff underpayment. The new case underscores the fact that as the current Trump rolls out and enforces its sweeping tariff program, companies will face significant scrutiny and potential claims risk.Continue Reading Trump Administration Brings Tariff Evasion Claim

In numerous public statements, Trump Administration officials have said the Administration intends to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to enforce certain policy priorities. For example, in connection with statements concerning the Administration’s intent to combat “illegal DEI,” officials have declared that corporate DEI policies or practices violating anti-discrimination laws could trigger FCA liability.  There are a number of levels on which potential FCA liability represents a serious corporate liability risk, not least because of the possibility of whistleblowers (including company employees or competitors) launching FCA whistleblower claims. In addition, as discussed below, a recent Southern District of New York ruling highlights how potentially massive FCA liability can be.Continue Reading More About the Trump Administration and Potential False Claims Act Liability

Earlier this month, when President Trump announced comprehensive tariffs, I speculated about whether or not the administration’s new tariff policy could create an environment that could lead to legal claims against some companies and their directors and offices. While I anticipated (and continue to anticipate) the possibility that there will be tariff-related D&O claims, one possibility I had not considered is the prospect that the new U.S. tariff regime could lead to increased number of tariff-related False Claims Act claims.

In an interesting April 16, 2025, memo, the Nixon Peabody law firm explains how “evasion of tariff requirements, including via false representation of countries of origin and undervaluation or misclassification of goods, creates the risk of substantial liability under the False Claims Act.” The law firm’s memo can be found here. (Hat Tip: John Jenkins of The CorporateCounsel.net Blog, who linked to the law firm memo in his April 23, 2025, post on the blog.)Continue Reading Trump’s Tariffs and the Risk of False Claims Act Liability

Regular readers know that a recurring topic on this site is the question of the proper scope of the contractual liability exclusion found in many professional liability and management liability insurance policies. In prior posts I have argued that insurers sometimes apply the exclusion overly-broadly so as to exclude matters I believe should otherwise be covered under the policy. A recent Delaware Superior Court decision once again considered these issues in the context of an underlying qui tam action alleging violations of federal law. As discussed below, the court concluded that the applicable policy’s contractual liability did not preclude coverage for the underlying claim. A copy of the Delaware Superior Court’s March 12, 2025, opinion in the case can be found here.Continue Reading Del. Court: Contract Exclusion Does Not Preclude Coverage for Qui Tam Action

More than once I have had occasion to write about qui tam actions on this site, primarily in connection with the complicated insurance coverage questions the cases can present. Now, in unexpected and provocative ruling, a federal district court judge has held the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions to be unconstitutional. While just the opinion of a single district court judge, and therefore without precedential effect outside of the federal district in which it was rendered, the ruling nonetheless is groundbreaking and potentially significant. The potential significance of this development is discussed below. A copy of Middle District of Florida Judge Katherine Kimball Mizelle’s September 30, 2024, opinion can be found here.Continue Reading Federal Court Holds False Claim Act’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

The number of False Claims Act cases, both those filed by the government and those filed by qui tam relators, is increasing. As a result, potential False Claims Act liability is increasingly important for companies and for their D&O insurers. At the same time, there have been recent court decisions, applying an expansive reading of D&O insurance policies, that have rejected D&O insurers’ attempts to deny coverage for False Claims Act claims against their policyholders. The recent decisions suggest that companies subject to False Claims Act claims potentially may be able to obtain coverage under their D&O insurance policies – and not only for defense expense, but for settlement amounts as well. An October 26, 2021 Insurance Journal article discussing the insurance implications of the growing number of False Claim Act cases can be found here.
Continue Reading Increased Numbers of False Claims Act Actions and the D&O Insurance Coverage Implications

In addition to all of the other risks, liabilities and exposures arising from cybersecurity concerns, you can now add the possibility of a whistleblower action for cybersecurity fraud. According to a July 31, 2019 press release from counsel for the whistleblower involved (here), Cisco Systems has agreed to an $8.6 million settlement in what the press release claims is the “first cybersecurity whistleblower case ever successfully litigated under the False Claims Act.” Cisco has agreed to pay the amount to settle allegations that the company knowingly sold vulnerable and defective video surveillance software to federal, state, and local government agencies, exposing the systems to unauthorized access. As discussed below, this development even further expands the range of concerns companies must take into account when assessing their cybersecurity exposures. An August 12, 2019 memo from the Jones Day law firm about the settlement and its implications can be found here.
Continue Reading Cybersecurity Whistleblower Claim under the False Claims Act Settled