New DOJ Guidance on Cooperation in False Claims Act Cases

15 May 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Lisa M. Noller Pamela L. Johnston Lori A. Rubin

On May 7, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released guidance for civil prosecutors in determining how to assess cooperation in False Claims Act (FCA) cases. See DOJ’s press release and its revised manual. In particular, the guidance formalizes factors prosecutors must consider when assessing whether an entity or person should receive cooperation credit and the extent of that credit. Cooperation credit typically results in DOJ reducing penalties or damages multiples imposed in an FCA resolution. Cooperation credit can also result in DOJ notifying relevant agencies of the cooperation, publicly acknowledging cooperation, and assisting the entity or person in resolving qui tam litigation with any relator. DOJ will not award any credit to a defendant that conceals involvement in the misconduct by senior personnel or that otherwise acts in bad faith. 

This guidance, while newly issued, appears to reflect DOJ’s current and historical use of cooperation credit over the last several years. The guidance provides for cooperation credit when defendants or would-be defendants voluntarily self-disclose misconduct, take other steps to cooperate, and implement adequate and effective remedial measures. In determining cooperation credit, the guidance provides that DOJ will consider timeliness, voluntariness, truthfulness, completeness, and reliability; the nature and extent of the assistance; and the significance and usefulness of the cooperation to DOJ. 

The new guidance is clear that simply responding to a compulsory process for information (like a civil investigative demand or a subpoena) does not in itself entitle the responder to cooperation credit. Cooperation credit must be earned. 

Maximum Credit

What is new is that DOJ provides detail about how it will determine the level of cooperation credit that a defendant or would-be defendant can receive. Under the new guidance, an entity or individual seeking “maximum” credit (an undefined term) should (1) undertake a timely self-disclosure that includes identifying all individuals substantially involved in or responsible for the misconduct, (2) provide full cooperation with the government’s investigation, and (3) take remedial steps designed to prevent and detect similar wrongdoing in the future. Each of these categories is a different type of cooperation under the guidelines, and each is described in more detail below. 

Voluntary Self-Disclosure

The updated manual provides for credit for “proactive, timely, and voluntary” self-disclosures of matters to DOJ that could serve as bases for liability under the FCA. Entities and persons can qualify for self-disclosure credit by self-disclosing conduct before any DOJ investigation begins or for self-disclosing conduct in the course of a DOJ investigation that goes beyond the scope of DOJ’s known concerns. 

Other Forms of Cooperation

Credit also may be due for steps to cooperate with an ongoing government investigation, which include:

  • Identifying individuals substantially involved in, or responsible for, the misconduct (note that a focus on identifying individuals has been a DOJ priority since at least the “Yates Memo,” in 2015;
  • Disclosing relevant facts and identifying opportunities for the government to obtain evidence relevant to the government’s investigation that are not in the possession of the entity or individual, or not otherwise known to the government;
  • Preserving, collecting, and disclosing relevant documents (and information relating to their provenance) beyond existing business practices or legal requirements; 
  • Identifying individuals who are aware of relevant information or conduct;
  • Making available for meetings, interviews, examinations, or depositions an entity’s officers and employees who possess relevant information;
  • Disclosing facts relevant to the government’s investigation, gathered during the entity’s independent investigation (not to include information subject to attorney-client privilege or work product protection), including attribution of facts to specific sources rather than a general narrative of facts, and providing timely updates on the organization’s internal investigation into the government’s concerns, including rolling disclosures of relevant information;
  • Providing facts relevant to potential misconduct by third parties;
  • Providing information in native format, and facilitating review and evaluation of that information if it requires special or proprietary technologies so that the information can be evaluated;
  • Admitting liability or accepting responsibility for the wrongdoing or relevant conduct; and,
  • Assisting in the determination or recovery of the losses caused by the misconduct.

Remedial Measures 

DOJ also considers awarding credit for entities that take appropriate remedial actions in response to the purported FCA violation, including for entities that thoroughly analyze the cause of the underlying conduct, remediate to address the root cause of the conduct, implement or improve an effective compliance program, and appropriately discipline or replace those identified as responsible for the misconduct (either through their direct participation or failure in oversight or supervision). DOJ also considers for cooperation credit any additional steps that demonstrate recognition of the seriousness of the misconduct, acceptance of responsibility for it, and the implementation of measures to reduce the risk of repetition and to identify future risks. 

These measures underscore the importance of undertaking early remediation and proactively presenting those actions to DOJ.

What Cooperation Is Not

DOJ is clear that cooperation does not include mere response to a subpoena, civil investigative demand, or other compulsory process for information. Nor does cooperation require a waiver of attorney-client privilege or work product protection.

The new section in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual further states DOJ will not award any credit to an entity or individual that conceals involvement in the misconduct by members of senior management or the board of directors, or for those that otherwise demonstrate a lack of good faith.

DOJ cautions that it has the discretion to consider other factors that may reduce the credit available to an entity or individual, or that may render the entity or individual ineligible for credit.

The DOJ press release and full policy is available online.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.