Court Finds That Qui Tam Relator Cannot Enforce 340B Program Statute
A recent decision from the Central District of California held that a qui tam relator cannot bring a False Claims Act (FCA) case against pharmaceutical manufacturers to enforce the 340B Drug Pricing Program’s (“340B Program”) statutory requirements. See United States ex rel. Adventist Health System/West v. AbbVie, No. 21-cv-04249 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2024). The 340B Program is a federal program that requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer discounted prices, called a “ceiling price,” on applicable drugs to certain hospitals and clinics, referred to as 340B “covered entities.” The relator, Adventist Health System/West, a covered entity under the 340B Program, alleged that the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers failed to comply with the 340B Program’s requirements related to the “penny pricing” policy, which requires manufacturers to offer drugs at a penny if the ceiling price calculation results in a number at or less than a penny.
When the Best Defense May Be a Good Offense: False Claims Act Counterclaims
A recent opinion from the Northern District of Georgia reminds False Claims Act defendants about a potentially powerful tool at their disposal—counterclaims. In United States ex rel. Cooley v. ERMI, LLC, the court permitted several counterclaims to proceed over the relator’s argument that they were against public policy, demonstrating how defendants can go on offense to hold relators accountable for their own misconduct. (more…)
D.C. Circuit Applies But-For Causation Standard, Weak Materiality Test to FCA Claims, While Concurrence Questions Viability of Fraudulent Inducement Theory
On July 6, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s dismissal of the qui tam suit against IBM in United States ex rel. Cimino v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 19-7139. The relator alleged that IBM and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) had entered into a software license agreement, but that upon learning that the IRS was uninterested in renewing the agreement, IBM fraudulently induced the IRS to extend the contract. In particular, IBM allegedly collaborated with the auditor of the agreement, resulting in an audit finding that the IRS owed IBM $292 million for noncompliance with the contract’s terms. IBM then offered allegedly to waive that fee in exchange for the IRS renewing the agreement. The relator further alleged that once the new agreement was in place, IBM nonetheless collected $87 million of the noncompliance penalty by disguising that amount as fees for products and services that were never provided. According to the relator, this scheme yielded FCA liability in two ways: first, IBM fraudulently induced the IRS to renew the agreement; second, IBM submitted false claims by billing $87 million for unprovided products and services.
