Thomas E. Zeno

Although qui tam relators filed a record 1,297 complaints in 2025, they face an uncertain future. Multiple circuit courts of appeal are evaluating whether qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Arguments before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals illustrate the issues also pending in the 3rd and 5th circuits on a legal practice William Shakespeare experienced personally.   Overview of the Qui Tam Provisions The qui tam provisions of the FCA authorize private

Government contractors and grant recipients should heed the warning bell represented by the record haul of recoveries in 2025 under the federal False Claims Act (FCA). Although more than $6.8 billion was collected, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), more troubling is the record number of 1,297 qui tam suits filed. This growth of whistleblower lawsuits comes just as DOJ has voiced its intent to use the FCA to combat diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. DOJ Investigations The DOJ is

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued its annual Health Care Fraud Takedown results, announcing a record-breaking 324 defendants, including 96 doctors and licensed professionals, as well as more than $14.6 billion in intended loss. While the large figures grab attention, an analysis of the DOJ’s statements offers important insight for American health care professionals and companies: Despite various executive orders and policy changes with the new administration, the DOJ and other government agencies continue to focus significant resources on

Government agencies may be eager to exercise their enhanced authority to investigate and pursue contractors under provisions in the newly enacted Administrative False Claims Act (AFCA). The two key changes discussed below could increase the number of claims that agencies may find appealing to investigate. Although these changes affect contractors of any size, small business contractors are likely to find investigations more disruptive if they lack a robust compliance program. But there are ways they can protect themselves by preparing for

When can a data breach can get worse? When the process of notifying victims creates a second breach. Take the example of a cancer treatment center that recently paid $425,000 to settle allegations that included a faulty notification process following a breach. The story provides an important lesson. One Breach Leads to Another It began with a spear phishing attack. Employees at the facility fell victim to the attack and their email accounts were compromised. The result: protected health information and other

It happens so often. An individual voluntarily talks with law enforcement agents in an effort to appear cooperative, but the prosecutor later labels the statements as incriminating “admissions.” Whether made before or after arrest, such statements prove compelling evidence. For example, during a recent trial, the prosecutor successfully argued to the jury that a Harvard professor unquestionably made false statements to government agencies because “the defendant himself has said that he did” during an interview. Example of the Harvard Professor Federal agents

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently overturned the prior administration’s limitations on the use of regulatory guidance in False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. Now, DOJ attorneys may rely on guidance documents “in any appropriate and lawful circumstances.” How should compliance programs respond to the resurgence of the regulators in the ongoing FCA wars? Background Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions initiated the limitation on the use of regulatory guidance in the prior administration with his Memo dated November 16, 2017. His mandate prohibited “Improper Guidance

China employs its Thousand Talents Program (“TTP”) to recruit overseas academic and scientific talent to work in China by promising research funding from the Chinese government and, occasionally, compensation. TTP has drawn increased scrutiny from the U.S. government, specifically the FBI and the Department of Justice, over purported concerns of intellectual property theft or espionage. However, a closer review of the actual charges brought to date by these government agencies reveals the crux of the matter has related to disclosures.

On January 1, 2021, the National Defense Authorization Act became law after Congress overrode the President’s veto. As highlighted below, Congress enacted a variety of key provisions that create significant and sweeping reforms to statutes and regulations designed to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. 1. Requiring Entities to Report “Beneficial Ownership” Congress determined that “malign actors” and “money launderers” conduct financial transactions through corporate structures that conceal their identities “much like Russian nesting ‘Matryoshka’ dolls.” In order to pierce these facades,

A medical device manufacturer learned what might seem an obvious lesson when it paid $18 million to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by its former Compliance Officer: don’t ignore your compliance officer. The federal government received $15.21 million; state governments received $2.79 million; and the whistleblower received $2.65 million of the federal share. The company, Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (MMS), also must pay attorneys’ fees due to the whistleblower’s counsel and enter into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the

The Department of Justice recently announced the results of its 2020 National Health Care Fraud and Opioid Takedown. This annual DOJ tradition, aimed at targeting and arresting individuals for health care fraud abuse, resulted in the filing of criminal charges against more than 50 doctors and more than 20 health care executives. Prosecutions spanned the country, including more than 50 federal districts and 40 U.S. Attorney’s Offices. FY2020’s efforts represent “the largest amount of fraud ever charged by the department