1.866.601.5518

720.941.7200

Email This Page Email This Page Print This Page Print This Page

Government False Claims Act Attorneys

Effective False Claims Defense Attorneys – Avoid Stiff Penalties 

 

Call Our Government Contract False Claims Experts Today at 1-866-601-5518

The consequences of losing on a federal False Claims Act  charge can cripple your business and reputation. Not only are you charged with fraud but the cost of a judgment against you can be substantial.  The government contract attorneys at Theodore Watson & Associates, LLC provides defense and litigation support for federal contractors that are subjected to investigations or allegations of fraud, False Claims Act violation and defective pricing disputes. A summary of our government contract services include:

  • Litigation defense
  • Appeals
  • False Claims Act defense
  • Defective pricing
  • Policy and compliance
  • Acting on your behalf with the agency
  • Billing disputes
  • Cost accounting guidance & Services

 

Develop effective internal policies. To prevent allegations of False Claim Act violations, our government contract attorneys assist companies in developing sound internal compliance policies that focus on:

  • Documentation
  • Effective checklists
  • Ethics compliance
  • Proper disclosure

 

Proper fraud and false claim defense is essential. After you become aware of a fraud allegation, you should quickly retain legal counsel.  The government quickly seeks evidence, launches investigations in your cost accounting and business information and can make your environment very miserable.  Having a sound government contract law defense attorney on side can create advantages that include:

  • Attorney client privileged communication
  • Proper guidance and disclosure
  • Proper application of evidence rules

 

Special counsel assistance in criminal prosecutions. Oftentimes, criminal defense attorneys need help when applying government contracting regulations. Theodore Watson & Associates provide advice and assistance to companies and attorneys across the country faced with False Claims Act violations, defective pricing disputes and fraud claims from the government.

 

Nationwide Representation

If you are involved in a federal investigation and need a government contract law defense attorney to  protect your rights, Theodore Watson & Associates provides assistance to contractors in virtually every state including Denver, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska, New York, Los Angeles California, San Francisco, Washington DC, Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Denver, Colorado Springs, Utah, California, Oklahoma, Ohio, Maine, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Maryland, Louisiana, Las Vegas, Georgia, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Washington, Mississippi, Tennessee, Tampa, Miami, Virgin Islands, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Delaware, Connecticut, Arizona, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Montana.

 

Contact us for Immediate Defense

For immediate help in a False Claims Act case, contact the government contract law defense attorneys at Theodore Watson & Associates or call 1-866-601-5518 or 720-941-7200.

Attorneys: Celeste Gamache, Theodore Watson, Lorraine Stark

Recent Supreme Court Decision In False Claims Act Case.

 

Other Relevant False Claims Act Decisions ( from wikipedia.org)

In a 2000 case, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000)[7], the United States Supreme Court held that a private individual may not bring suit in federal court on behalf of the United States against a State (or state agency) under the FCA. In Stevens, the Supreme Court also endorsed the “partial assignment” approach to qui tam relator standing (law) to sue, which had previously been articulated by the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals and is an exception to the general legal rule for standing.[8]

In a 2007 case, Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, the United States Supreme Court considered several issues relating to the “original source” exception to the FCA’s public-disclosure bar. The Court held that (1) the original source requirement of the FCA provision setting for the original-source exception to the public-disclosure bar on federal-court jurisdiction is jurisdictional; (2) the statutory phrase “information on which the allegations are based” refers to the relator’s allegations and not the publicly disclosed allegations; the terms “allegations” is not limited to the allegations in the original complaint, but includes, at a minimum, the allegations in the original complaint as amended; (3) relator’s knowledge with respect to the pondcrete fell short of the direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based required for him to qualify as an original source; and (4) the government’s intervention did not provide an independent basis of jurisdiction with respect to the relator.

In a 2008 case, Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a false claim had to be presented directly to the Federal government, or if it merely needed to be paid with government money, such as a false claim by a subcontractor to a prime contractor. The Court found that the claim need not be presented directly to the government, but that the false statement must be made with the intention that it will be relied upon by the government in paying, or approving payment of, a claim.[9] The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 reversed the Court’s decision and made the types of fraud to which the False Claims Act applies more explicit.[10]

In a 2009 case, United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York,[11] the United States Supreme Court considered whether, when the government declines to intervene or otherwise actively participate in a “qui tam” action under the False Claims Act, the United States is a “party” to the suit for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) (which requires that a notice of appeal in a federal civil action generally be filed within 30 days after entry of a judgment or order from which the appeal is taken). The Court held that when the United States has declined to intervene in a privately initiated FCA action, it is not a “party” for FRAP 4 purposes, and therefore, petitioner’s appeal filed after 30 days was untimely.