In this issue:
In this issue:
- A settlement involving a construction company that improperly claimed credit for using disadvantaged business entities on federally-funded New Jersey construction contracts that did not actually perform the work.
- An Anti-Kickback Statute case where the district court denied defendant’s motion to compel certain Medicare claims data and rejected the “benefit of the bargain”
Time for another update…
The United States Asserts Its Position on Rule 9(b) Before Supreme Court in Response to Owsley Cert Petition
The Solicitor General’s office has once again expressed its view that the Supreme Court should deny a petition for a writ of certiorari requesting that the Court clarify the pleading standard – specifically…
United States ex rel. Mackillop v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., et al., 2022 WL 4084444 (D. Mass.)
Industry: Higher Education
Topics: Materiality, Scienter
In Mackillop, the relator, a university counselor, brought suit against Grand Canyon Education, Inc., an educational service company that provides support services to colleges and universities, and Grand Canyon University (collectively Grand Canyon), alleging that Grand Canyon violated the FCA by applying for and receiving federal grants and financial aid while failing to disclose its violations of the “Incentive Compensation Ban” (Compensation Ban) – a statute and set of Department of Education regulations that prohibit schools from compensating counselors and recruiters on the basis of how many students they enroll.
After the close of discovery, Grand Canyon moved for summary judgment on three grounds: (1) there was no evidence of any violation of the Compensation Ban; (2) there was no triable evidence that representations regarding Grand Canyon’s compliance with the Compensation Ban were material; and (3) there was no triable evidence that Grand Canyon’s misrepresentations were made with knowledge of their falsity.
The court denied Grand Canyon’s summary judgment motion. Regarding Grand Canyon’s argument that there was no evidence of a Compensation Ban violation because its compensation plans were based on tenure, the court found a dispute of material fact as to whether there were such violations given evidence that Grand Canyon’s compensation plans were based on both tenure and sales volume.
Grand Canyon also argued that any such misrepresentation was not material, because the government knew of its alleged violations, including by virtue of the filing of the instant case, and took no action in response. The Court rejected this argument for three reasons. First, the relator’s complaint was merely a set of allegations, and courts should not rely on the government’s response to mere allegations in assessing materiality. Second, the government disputed that it had actual knowledge of Grand Canyon’s alleged violations. Although Grand Canyon asserted that it submitted the compensation plans at issue to the Department of Education, there was a factual dispute as to whether such submissions occurred given the Department of Education’s denials of ever having received them. Third, the court held that even if the government had knowledge, there was evidence that there were legitimate reasons why the government might not withdraw funding even after learning of the non-compliance, such that the government’s knowledge of the wrongdoing was not by itself dispositive on the issue of materiality.
Lastly, Grand Canyon urged the Court to apply the Safeco standard in analyzing scienter and argued that the undisputed facts demonstrated that Grand Canyon intended for the school to comply with the Compensation Ban, as shown by (1) Grand Canyon’s dedication of significant resources towards designing policies for compliance, and (2) that Grand Canyon did not knowingly or recklessly violate the Compensation Ban.
The Safeco standard provides a framework to analyze scienter for legally false claims. Under the standard, a defendant who acted under an incorrect interpretation of the relevant underlying statute or regulation did not act with reckless disregard if, regardless of the defendant’s subjective intent, “(1) the interpretation was objectively reasonable and (2) no authoritative guidance existed that might have warned defendant away from its interpretation.”  The court recognized that while some courts have applied the Safeco standard to evaluate scienter, others applied a similar, but distinguishable “gross-negligence” – plus standard, defining recklessness as a “state of mind in which one ‘knows or has reason to know of facts that would lead a reasonable person’ to ascertain that harm is likely.” While recognizing this split, the Court nonetheless did not decide the issue of what standard should apply because it determined that there was a disputed factual issue under either standard, given evidence of Grand Canyon’s ignoring explicit instructions by its attorneys not to engage in the conduct alleged to have violated the Compensation Ban.
Accordingly, the court denied Grand Canyon’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.
Takeaways: As this decision notes, the circuit split on the applicability of Safeco to the FCA’s “knowledge” element is not a binary one, with the Fourth Circuit having staked out its own position on Safeco in United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC, 24 F.4th 340, 347–48 (4th Cir. 2022).
This decision also highlights the limitations of arguing the government’s knowledge of the falsity of the claim as a defense against materiality. The court viewed materiality as a disputed issue where even if the government knew of the false claims, there were legitimate reasons for the government not to seek recoupment of the allegedly false claims.…
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has added its voice to the split among circuit courts regarding the appropriate standard for deciding government motions to dismiss qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) actions after it has declined to intervene. In affirming the district court’s grant of the government’s motion to dismiss in …
In a speech on the Senate floor last week, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced that he plans to introduce legislation aimed at limiting the scope of the Department of Justice’s False Claims Act dismissal authority. Specifically, Sen. Grassley’s anticipated legislation would require DOJ to state its reasons and provide whistleblowers who bring the cases an opportunity to be heard by the court whenever DOJ moves to dismiss a qui tam False Claims Act case.
Sen. Grassley, the author of the 1986 amendments to the FCA, described DOJ’s practice of dismissing charges in many of the FCA cases brought by whistleblowers as “especially ironic,” given the “massive increase” in government funding related to the COVID-19 response that has “created new opportunities for fraudsters trying to cheat the government.” According to Sen. Grassley, “[if] there are serious allegations of fraud against the government, the Attorney General should have to state the legitimate reasons for deciding not to pursue them in court.” Courts have been split on the justification DOJ must provide in moving to dismiss a case, with some courts ruling that DOJ has “virtually unfettered discretion” to dismiss qui tam suits, while other holding that DOJ must provide a “legitimate reason” for dismissal. Courts falling in the latter camp have set forth varying standards for how thorough DOJ must be in justifying a motion to dismiss a qui tam case. Sen. Grassley indicated that his proposed legislation would clarify these ambiguities and rein in DOJ’s dismissal authority.…