Last week, the District of Kansas granted summary judgment to Boeing in U.S. ex rel. Smith v. The Boeing Company, Case No. 05-10730MLB (D. Kan.), a False Claims Act case in which the qui tam relators effectively tried to second-guess the professional judgment of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
There is good news for FCA defendants out of the First Circuit: According to a recent decision, settlement payments in excess of the government’s single damages are tax deductible if the defendant can show that the excess sums are compensatory, rather than punitive. The Internal Revenue Code allows businesses to deduct its “ordinary and necessary expenses” but not “any fine or similar penalty paid to a government for the violation of any law.” Applying this guidance to FCA settlements is complicated by the FCA’s treble damages provisions, which clearly implicate a punitive damages component.
J.B. Lind, an associate in the Vorys Cincinnati office and a member of the litigation group, authored an article for the September issue of the Cincinnati Bar Association’s CBA Report titled “CALL Class XVIII: Youth Court.”
On August 22, 2014, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed on all counts a Williams County probate court’s September 2012 decision in favor of PNC Bank, National Association against successor trustee and beneficiaries’ various breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. The decision in Newcomer v. National City Bank, (2014-Ohio-3619; 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 6365 (Ohio App. 6th Dist.)) provides critical guidance for Ohio trustees on four key points of law.
As reflected in the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Brown v. Tellermate Holdings, Ltd., communication and candor are key components of modern discovery. Indeed, the Brown decision emphasizes that, not only do attorneys have an affirmative obligation to speak to the key players related to the matter being litigated so that counsel and client together can identify, preserve, and search the sources of discoverable information, but doing so is necessary for effective advocacy.
Last week, the D.C. Circuit provided good news to defense contractors, health care providers and all other corporate entities doing business with the government. In a forceful opinion, the court overruled a trial court decision that portended disastrous consequences for privileged internal investigations by corporate legal departments.
Today, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. The petition presented two questions: (1) whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) applies to claims of civil fraud brought by qui tam relators, and (2) whether the False Claims Act’s (FCA) first-to-file rule is an absolute bar or whether it permits subsequent actions so long as the first-filed action had been dismissed on non-merits grounds prior to filing of the subsequent action.
The Third Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. ex rel. Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 10549 (3d. Cir. June 6, 2014), evens the circuit split regarding whether a FCA plaintiff must identify at least one representative false claim before being granted a ticket to discovery—a troubling development for anyone who does business with the federal government and therefore runs the risk of dealing with an FCA lawsuit.
Lisa Forbes, a partner in the Vorys Cleveland office and a member of the litigation group, authored an article titled "Avoiding Liability: Considerations and Guidelines for Not-for-Profit Directors and Officers" for the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.
Qui tam relators and the Department of Justice continually push the FCA envelope with implied certification cases. A recent case from the District of Massachusetts, U.S. ex rel. Julio Escobar, et al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc., illustrates how FCA plaintiffs try to use this theory to shoehorn non-fraudulent regulatory non-compliances into FCA violations—and how to beat such claims.
The Supreme Court of Ohio issued its decision dated March 4, 2014, in the case of FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. Inks, et al (2014-Ohio-789), confirming important Ohio statutory protections for lenders in workout situations under Ohio Revised Code Section 1335.05.
Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, of counsel in the Vorys Columbus office and a member of the litigation group, authored an article for the National Law Journal titled "The Judge's Role As an Agent of Change."
Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, of counsel in the Vorys Columbus office, authored a chapter in the book The Attorneys Guide to Defending Veterans in Criminal Court, published by the Veterans Defense Project.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently clarified the operation of the Ohio Uniform Fiduciaries Act (UFA) when it affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging multiple claims against a banking client. The Complaint arose out of the misappropriation of funds by the authorized fiduciary of trust and estate accounts held at the bank.
A recent trial victory on behalf of a major banking client clarifies three key points of law in Ohio fiduciary litigation. In June 2012, a Vorys trial team led by Daniel J. Buckley and Lisa Babish Forbes defended a trustee in a five-day bench trial against numerous breach of fiduciary duty claims brought by successor trustees and beneficiaries.
Ohio Governor John Kasich today signed the Amended Substitute House Bill 380, which requires the full disclosure of all asbestos bankruptcy trust claims made by plaintiffs with asbestos lawsuits in Ohio. The law will go into effect 90 days from today.
The Ohio General Assembly this week passed Amended Substitute House Bill 380, which requires the full disclosure of all asbestos bankruptcy trust claims made by plaintiffs with asbestos lawsuits in Ohio. The bill is headed to Governor John Kasich’s desk; he is expected to sign the bill.