Articles Posted in Credit Assistance Fraud

Published on:

Service member wearing Army uniform (ACU) filling real estate related paperwork.Court takes “holistic approach” to materiality, rejecting strict focus on the ultimate “payment decision” in significant win for qui tam whistleblowers and the government.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about United States v. Strock. There, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Services v. Escobarwhich held that misrepresentations regarding compliance with a statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements “must be material to the Government’s payment decision” to be actionable under the False Claims Act—did not invalidate the “fraudulent inducement” theory of False Claims Act liability. Under that theory, which predates Escobar, a violation of the False Claims Act can be established by showing that the defendant submitted claims for payment under a contract obtained by fraud—even if the subsequent claims for payment under the contract were themselves entirely truthful. The focus in a such a case, the Second Circuit confirmed, still includes the fraudulent statements’ impact on the government’s initial decision to award the contract. Any subsequent payments are “tainted” by that original fraud.

Now—in another key victory for whistleblowers and the government—the Eleventh Circuit has taken a similarly broad view of Escobar’s materiality requirement. In United States ex rel. Bibby v. Mortg. Inv’rs Corp., the court adopted a “holistic approach” to the assessment of materiality under the False Claims Act, rejecting a “strict focus” on the ultimate “payment decision.”

Published on:

Fraud in connection with receipt of federal bailout funds held to be actionable under the False Claims Act.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of two financial sector shutterstock_401325058-2-300x134qui tam whistleblowers, reviving their claims under the False Claims Act that Wells Fargo lied about its financial condition in order to get billions of dollars in low-interest emergency bailout funds from regional Federal Reserve Banks during the Financial Crisis.

The whistleblowers–who were former employees of Wells Fargo–alleged that the financial institution falsely certified that it was adequately capitalized and in compliance with applicable banking and mortgage lending laws when it requested billions of dollars in emergency loans from the Fed’s Discount Window and Term Auction Facility. As a result, it could get interest rates on the borrowed funds that were much lower than those for which it would otherwise have qualified.