The recent False Claims Act case of United States ex rel. Hassan Foreman v. AECOM highlights a number of the unique issues involved in qui tam actions, including the shifting significance of government knowledge. While that knowledge alone may not suffice to bar allegations under the public disclosure rule, it may make the allegations immaterial if the government continues to award contract extensions. In this case, the district court dismissed a whistleblower’s suit alleging that AECOM engaged in improper billing and other violations, on the grounds that that the alleged misrepresentations were not material because the government knew of the violations and continued to make payments.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
Mandatory Disclosure Rule Best Practices for Government Contractors • SBA Proposes Rollback of Social Disadvantage Presumption in 8(a) Program • New EO on Customs Enforcement Tightens Import Controls, Aims to Reduce Evasion • New Grant Regulations from OMB • The False Alignment Trap in Compliance Transformation
Materiality & the Public Disclosure Bar: Fending Off Qui Tam Attacks
Vitalii Vodolazskyi | Shutterstock
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.