Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

GovCon Blog: United Technologies is Saved from $657 Million False Claims Act Verdict by the Sixth Circuit

Publications

April 17, 2015

On April 6, 2015, the Sixth Circuit delivered a costly blow to the United States government to the tune of $657 million when it issued its opinion in United States v. United Technologies Corporation and remanded the case back to the district court to review the damages award, yet again.

This was the second time that the Sixth Circuit heard arguments deriving from the United States False Claims Act case against Pratt & Whitney ("Pratt"), now owned by United Technologies, for false statements the company made when competing against GE Aircraft for contracts to build F-15 and F-16 jet engines. In 1983, in an attempt to outbid GE Aircraft and make it hard for the government to issue a split-award contract, Pratt misstated its projected costs and certified that the company's bid included its "best estimates and/or actual costs." After uncovering Pratt's overstated costs projections, the government filed both an administrative action against the company in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA") under the Truth in Negotiations Act and a lawsuit in district court alleging violations of the False Claims Act. 

Unsuccessful in its administrative proceeding for failing to meet its burden of demonstrating that Pratt's false statements led to higher prices, the government had slightly better luck in district court – Pratt was fined $7 million but not required to pay any damages. During the first appeal, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to reevaluate its no-damages determination and, in doing so, to consider the "fair market value" of Pratt's engines. The circuit court cautioned that it may not necessarily lead to a different conclusion regarding damages. On remand, "the government received an upgrade" when the court awarded it $657 million in damages.

In this most recent appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that, while Board of Appeal's determination did not bar the government's damages claim, the lower court erred in its damages determination. Most importantly, the court failed to use a pricing expert to consider whether the competition between Pratt and GE impacted "reasonable and fair prices" or entirely eliminated damages to the government. Additionally, the court found that Pratt sufficiently rebutted the presumption that the government was entitled to one dollar of damages for every dollar of overstated cost. In the end, the Sixth Circuit, after systematically rejecting each of the government's arguments supporting the hefty damages determination, reluctantly remanded the case back to the district court for a third time to determine proper damages.

For additional information, the Sixth Circuit’s decision can be found at: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0062p-06.pdf.

Read more about government contracts on www.bassberrygovcon.com.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.