• Posts by Mallory A. Barr
    Associate

    Mallory A. Barr is an associate at CPM, where she practices in a variety of fields, including False Claims Act litigation, mass torts, consumer protection, elder abuse, employment law, and other complex civil litigation.

    Mallory ...

Differences between the Statute of Limitations and Statute of Repose Periods under the False Claims Act and California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act

An action under the FCA must be brought within the later of either: (1) six years from when the underlying § 3729 violation is committed; (2) three years after the government knows or should have known about the material facts ; or (3) ten years from when the underlying violation is committed. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)-(2).

Read More ›
How Does the Public Disclosure Bar of the California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act Differ from that of the False Claims Act

Both the FCA and California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (“CIFPA”) have limitations on filing certain actions, including: (a) the first to file bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5) and Cal. Ins. Code §1871.7(e)(5); and (b) the public disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A)-(B); Cal. Ins. Code §1871.7(h)(2)(A)-(B).

Under the public disclosure bar, relators/whistleblowers are barred from pursuing claims if they allege substantially similar allegations or transactions were publicly disclosed, unless the relator is the “original source.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A)-(B); Cal. Ins. Code §1871.7(h)(2)(A)-(B). However, what constitutes an “original source” varies slightly between the statutes.

Read More ›
What is the California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act?

The California Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (“CIFPA”), Ins. Code §§ 1871, et seq., is an anti-fraud statute applicable to all types of insurance fraud. The CIFPA is a broad reaching statute designed to prevent and punish fraud, specifically insurance fraud through imposing significant penalties and provides for recovery of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a share of the penalties imposed by the successful whistleblower.

Two unique pieces of the CIFPA were discussed in State ex rel. Wilson v. Super. Ct. (2014) 227 Cal. App. 4th 579: (1) what constitutes a “fraudulent claim” and (2) the prohibition on employing “runners, cappers, [or] steerers.”

Read More ›
Fraud in For-Profit Education: Sufficient Particularity and Causal Connections

With the mounting costs of higher education, students are increasingly relying on federal financial aid to finance their education. As a result, taxpayer monies are increasingly being advertised and used by higher education institutions, both non-profit and for-profit, to maintain student enrollment. As discussed in an earlier post, for-profit schools must certify they are in compliance with various federal statutes and regulations in order to receive federal financial aid, including: (1) being accredited by an approved agency; (2) that they do not derive at least 10% of their revenues from non-federal sources, known as the 90-10 Rule; (3) that they do not pay recruiters bonuses or other incentives payments based on student enrollments; and (4) that students are making satisfactory progress toward completing their course of study.  

Read More ›

Archives

Jump to Page

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.