Sharing Agreements, Consolidation, and Relators’ Share

More and more, we are seeing multiple and separate qui tam cases filed across various districts that, in part, contain overlapping claims, allege common sets of facts, or supplement each other in a way that, if combined, results in much stronger complaint. The problem is simple: absent consolidation and a sharing agreement, the government has a mess on its hands when trying to determine who is the “first” relator for purposes of the relators’ share.

Comment

Good News for Ninth Circuit Decision Realtors and Defendants

With respect to relators, in a matter of first impression before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court held that knowingly false underbidding can support False Claims Act liability.

In Hooper v. Lockheed Martin, No. 11-55278 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012), the relator was an engineer working for Lockheed, and he claimed that Lockheed defrauded the Air Force under a government contract by knowingly underbidding the contract. Lockheed argued that the estimates in its bid could not predicate liability because an estimate is merely an opinion or prediction, as opposed to a false statement. The relator, however, produced evidence that Lockheed employees were told to lower their bids without regard to actual cost. This evidence, according to the Ninth Circuit, raised a genuine issue as to whether Lockheed had the requisite knowledge when it submitted its bid for the contract. Thus, the court held that summary judgment for Lockheed on this claim was inappropriately granted and, in light of this decision, relators should be on the lookout for bids based on lower-than-actual costs as a potential basis for liability.

Comment