Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What emerging trend in shareholder litigation does Britt Latham find most interesting in his practice today?    Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

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.