Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
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

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

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.