Whistleblower Lawsuits In Northern
How the law works in Northern
The False Claims Act allows people in Northern to file “qui tam” or more commonly
known as a Federal whistleblower lawsuit against individuals or companies
that have directly or indirectly defrauded the federal government whether in
Northern or not. Through qui
tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits, Northern whistleblowers may recover the
government’s losses on the government’s behalf. Tax fraud cases including
Northern tax fraud cases are often handled much differently
. For more information about rewards for Qui Tam whistleblowers
in
Northern in cases
involving federal tax fraud or tax underpayments, see information about the new IRS
whistleblower law .
Many people who file qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits (called the “relators”)
are employees or former employees of companies that commit fraud. But anyone who
knows of a particular instance
where the government has paid false claims can file a qui
tam or whistleblower lawsuit. That could be, for example, a competitor, a customer, a
subcontractor or even a patient.
Northern False Claims Act cases and procedures are unique, and a specialized knowledge of the law can be very helpful in getting a successful outcome for a qui tam lawsuit.
The relator in Northern files the Qui Tam lawsuit in a federal court "under
seal,” meaning that it is not available to the public, nor can it be discussed
with anyone, except of course the government officials actually
investigating the case. Even the defendants in the case -- the
individual or organization charged with committing fraud -- are not told about
the lawsuit. This gives the government time to investigate the fraud allegations
without alerting the defendant. In most instances the seal lasts for 60 days.
But these seals on Qui-Tam or whistleblower lawsuits often can be routinely
extended for one or two years or even longer under circumstances while the
government continues to investigate.
At the end of the sealed investigative period in Northern states, the government decides whether to join, or intervene, in the qui tam lawsuit. If the government joins the case, the litigation is conducted jointly by the government and the whistleblower’s attorney in Northern Federal court, with the government as lead counsel. If the government declines to intervene, the relator in Northern may go forward with the lawsuit and assumes primary responsibility for running the case.
The timing of a lawsuit in a Northern location can be critical. The first person to file a case in the Northern region under the False Claims Act for a particular fraud in a Northern area preempts all other cases. So if you plan to bring a case in Northern, it is important to do so before another whistleblower in a Northern area beats you to the courthouse. Potential whistleblowers in Northern areas also should keep in mind that the False Claims Act has a statute of limitations that may be as short as six years.
Computing Damages and fines within Northern
The law stipulates that a liable defendant shall pay not only three times the government’s losses but also a fine for each false claim. When the government settles a case originating in Northern regions, the government often agrees to forego the civil penalties and accepts two to three times the amount of damages suffered by the government. The defendant also must pay the fees and the case-related expenses of the whistleblower’s attorney in Northern states.
Northern Whistleblower’s reward
Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers in Northern states are entitled to 15 percent to 30 percent of whatever amount the government recovers as a result of their qui tam or Northern whistleblower lawsuits. The amount varies, depending on whether the government intervened in the Northern states qui tam case and other factors.
Congress has decided to give whistleblowers in all states including Northern states a share of the recoveries that result from qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits filed in Northern regions to give people a strong incentive to step forward and take the personal and professional risks involved in reporting fraud. Congress also wanted to try to encourage private law firms to risk their resources in litigating these type cases in the public’s behalf.