Jun 282012

Are The Wars In Iraq and Afghanistan Tolling the Statute of Limitations for FCA Claims?

Scott D. Stein

In a post titled “When is War Really Over,” the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported on a recent Fifth Circuit decision interpreting the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, 18 USC 3287. That statute states in pertinent part that:

When the United States is at war or Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces, as described in section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution, the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense

  1. involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not, or
  2. committed in connection with the acquisition, care, handling, custody, control or disposition of any real or personal property of the United States, or
  3. committed in connection with the negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment for, interim financing, cancelation, or other termination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the war or directly connected with or related to the authorized use of the Armed Forces, or with any disposition of termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency, shall be suspended until 5 years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by a Presidential proclamation, with notice to Congress, or by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

The Fifth Circuit held that a formal declaration of the cessation of hostilities is required to end the tolling – something that the court held has not yet occurred with respect to the war in Iraq. The decision is troubling in light of another decision last year in which a federal district court suggested that civil False Claims Act cases – at least those in which the United States intervenes – may qualify as an “offense” under the Act.

This topic should be of interest to all FCA practitioners, as the Wartime Suspension act is not limited to any particular type of FCA claims. On its face it applies equally to FCA claims involving allegations of health care fraud or mortgage fraud as to claims involving fraud by military contractors. While the few district courts that have been asked to extend the applicability of the Wartime Suspension Act to the FCA have indicated some reluctance to do so, we can expect enterprising relators (and the United States) to press this argument in cases in which the statute of limitations is a significant issue.

Scott D. Stein

Chicago

sstein@sidley.com

You might also like
The Illinois False Claims Act: Key Provisions and Current Trends

On August 23, 2019, Bloomberg Law published an article by Kathleen Carlson and Suzanne Notton of Sidley Austin discussing key provisions of the Illinois False Claims Act and recent trends in Illinois False Claims Act case law.  This article is the first in a series of articles addressing the False Claims Acts of states that see relatively frequent state FCA lawsuits.  In addition to Illinois, these states include California, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York.  A copy of the article can be downloaded here.

Supreme Court Unanimously Extends FCA Statute of Limitations to 10 Years for Non-Intervened Cases

On May 13, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) alternative 10-year statute of limitations applies to non-intervened actions.  As previously reported here, Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, presented two main issues: whether relators are entitled to invoke the FCA’s 10-year statute of limitations set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2), and whether relators are considered “official[s] of the United States” whose knowledge is relevant for determining when the 10-year limitations period applies.  Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Thomas ruled favorably for relators on both questions.

Supreme Court Appears Poised To Extend FCA Statute of Limitations to 10 Years In Non-Intervened Cases

On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy v. United States ex rel. Hunt, a case that appears likely to resolve a circuit split on an issue of critical importance: in non-intervened FCA cases – which comprise the vast majority of FCA cases – are relators entitled to invoke the FCA’s alternative 10 year statute of limitations set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2)?  That provision provides for a ten year statute of limitations if the action is brought no more than three years after “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act” knows, or should know, the material facts of the violation.  While an opinion is not expected until later this year, the tenor and content of the Justices’ questions suggest that the Court’s answer to that question is likely to be yes.