Holdsworth & Inkwell
False Claims Act Litigation for Whistleblowers

False Claims Act Litigation for Whistleblowers

A hard decision. Steady counsel.

Overview

Every Filing Indexed Before the Case Moves

The False Claims Act is the federal government's primary tool for combating fraud against taxpayer-funded programs. The statute allows private individuals (called relators) to file suit on behalf of the government when they have evidence of fraud against federal programs. Successful qui tam actions return billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury each year and allow relators to share in the recovery, typically 15 to 30 percent of the total amount the government recovers. Most states have parallel false claims statutes that operate similarly for state and local programs.

Holdsworth & Inkwell represents whistleblowers in qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act and state false claims statutes. The practice covers healthcare fraud (kickbacks, billing fraud, medically unnecessary services, off-label promotion), procurement fraud (overcharging, defective products, cross-charging between contracts), grant fraud (research misconduct, ineligible expenditures), customs fraud, and other categories of fraud against government programs. The firm guides relators through the complex procedural requirements of FCA litigation, including the first-to-file analysis, public disclosure considerations, sealed filing requirements, and government investigation period before unsealing.

Common Matters

What This Usually Looks Like

Fraud against a government program rarely announces itself in legal terms. It shows up as a specific invoice, a certification that doesn't match what actually happened, or a pattern in the billing that nobody else seems to question. The situations below are grouped by where that kind of fraud tends to surface, not by legal theory, so you can see quickly whether what you're looking at fits a category we handle regularly. Recognizing your own situation here is the first step; what happens after filing is covered further down this page.

  • Healthcare Fraud

    The largest category of False Claims Act litigation, encompassing fraud against Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and other federal healthcare programs. Common subcategories include false billing for services not provided or upcoded services, kickbacks paid for patient referrals, medically unnecessary services, off-label promotion of pharmaceuticals, violations of the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and false certification of compliance with regulatory requirements. Healthcare FCA matters often involve hospital systems, pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device companies, nursing facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment suppliers, and pharmacy benefit managers.

  • Government Procurement Fraud

    Fraud committed by contractors and subcontractors in federal procurement programs across defense, civilian, and intelligence agencies. Common subcategories include cross-charging between contracts (billing one contract for work done on another), defective products and false certifications of conformance to specifications, overcharging through inflated cost claims, providing counterfeit or non-compliant parts, violations of small business and minority-owned business set-aside requirements, and false certifications of contract compliance with cybersecurity, supply chain, and other regulatory requirements.

  • Grant Fraud

    Fraud in the use of federal grant funds across research, education, and program grants administered by agencies including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, and Department of Health and Human Services. Common subcategories include falsification or fabrication of research data in grant applications and reports, misappropriation of grant funds for ineligible purposes, double-charging across multiple grants, falsification of institutional certifications, and undisclosed conflicts of interest or foreign affiliations.

  • Customs Fraud

    Fraud against U.S. Customs and Border Protection through evasion of duties owed on imported goods. Common subcategories include misclassification of goods to obtain lower duty rates, undervaluation of imports, false country-of-origin declarations to evade duties (particularly antidumping and countervailing duties), transshipment schemes that disguise the true origin of goods, and false certifications of compliance with trade agreement requirements. Customs FCA matters have grown substantially with increased trade enforcement and the application of antidumping duties to a wider range of products.

  • Mortgage and Federally-Backed Lending Fraud

    Fraud in federally-insured and federally-guaranteed lending programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (FHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Small Business Administration. Common subcategories include false certifications of underwriting standards, improper origination practices that violated program requirements, false claims for insurance benefits after loan defaults, and misrepresentations about borrower or property characteristics. Major FCA recoveries in this category have followed both the 2008 financial crisis and ongoing oversight of federally-backed mortgage programs.

  • Pandemic Relief Fraud

    Fraud in COVID-19 economic relief programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL), Provider Relief Fund, and other emergency programs. Common subcategories include false certifications of eligibility, misrepresentations about employee headcount or payroll, double-dipping across multiple relief programs, and use of relief funds for ineligible purposes. The Department of Justice has prioritized pandemic relief fraud, and qui tam actions have produced significant recoveries from both individual borrowers and lenders that processed fraudulent applications.

  • State False Claims Act Matters

    Parallel proceedings under state false claims acts that follow the federal FCA model and apply to state and local government programs. More than 30 states (and the District of Columbia) have their own false claims acts, with some states (including New York and California) offering particularly robust statutory frameworks. State FCA matters often run alongside federal FCA actions where the underlying fraud affects both federal and state programs (for example, Medicaid fraud that violates both federal and state false claims statutes). The relator's share, recovery amounts, and procedural rules vary by state.

Typical Opposing Parties

The Institutions These Cases Confront

Whistleblower claims run against institutions with real resources and every incentive to fight. The list below shows the kinds of defendants these matters typically involve: hospital systems and pharmaceutical companies, government contractors, research institutions, lenders, and importers. Each is examined at the level of certifications, contracts, and internal records this practice depends on.

  • Healthcare Providers and Pharmaceutical Companies

    The dominant defendant category in federal FCA litigation, including hospital systems, physician groups, nursing facilities, home health and hospice agencies, durable medical equipment suppliers, pharmacy benefit managers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and medical device companies. Healthcare defendants face FCA exposure under multiple frameworks: direct false billing claims, Anti-Kickback Statute violations that produce false claims, Stark Law violations, false certifications of regulatory compliance, and pharmaceutical off-label promotion. Individual healthcare executives and physicians can be named alongside corporate defendants where their personal involvement supports liability.

  • Government Contractors and Subcontractors

    Federal contractors and subcontractors across defense, civilian, and intelligence agencies. Defendants include prime contractors with large government portfolios, specialized subcontractors providing services or products to prime contractors, and individual companies that participated in specific procurements. FCA exposure arises from cross-charging between contracts, defective products and false certifications, overcharging through inflated cost claims, violations of small business set-aside requirements, and false certifications of regulatory compliance including cybersecurity, supply chain, and labor requirements. Procurement FCA matters have grown with increased enforcement of cybersecurity and supply chain requirements.

  • Research Institutions and Educational Organizations

    Universities, academic medical centers, research hospitals, and other institutions that receive federal grant funding for research, education, and program support. Defendants include institutional grant recipients and individual principal investigators or program directors whose conduct supports liability. FCA exposure arises from falsification of research data in grant applications and reports, misappropriation of grant funds, double-charging across federal grants, undisclosed conflicts of interest or foreign affiliations, and false institutional certifications. Several major universities have entered substantial FCA settlements involving research grant fraud.

  • Financial Institutions in Federally-Backed Lending

    Banks, mortgage lenders, and other financial institutions that participated in federally-insured or federally-guaranteed lending programs and failed to comply with program requirements. Defendants include direct lenders, loan servicers, and underwriters that certified compliance with FHA, VA, USDA, or SBA program standards. FCA exposure arises from false certifications of underwriting standards, improper origination practices, false claims for insurance benefits after loan defaults, and misrepresentations about borrower or property characteristics. Major FCA recoveries in this category followed the 2008 financial crisis.

  • Importers and Trade Companies

    Companies that import goods into the United States and have evaded customs duties through misclassification, undervaluation, country-of-origin fraud, or transshipment schemes. Defendants include direct importers of record, customs brokers who facilitated the misclassification, and parent companies of importing subsidiaries where corporate involvement is established. Customs FCA enforcement has expanded significantly with increased trade enforcement, the application of antidumping and countervailing duties to broader product categories, and DOJ's focus on coordinated trade and FCA enforcement strategies.

Key Considerations

What Shapes a Qui Tam Case

A qui tam case is shaped by decisions made long before a complaint is ever filed. Each carries real weight, and none has a single right answer independent of the facts. We set out the factors below plainly, including the difficult ones. A relator deciding whether to come forward deserves the full picture, not a comfortable one.

  • First-to-File Urgency

    The first-to-file rule means that only the first relator to file a qui tam action based on a particular set of facts can pursue the claim. A potential whistleblower with knowledge of fraud who delays filing risks being preempted by another relator. At the same time, filing prematurely without adequate evidentiary support can expose the case to early dismissal under Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. The balance between filing quickly and filing well is one of the most important strategic decisions in any qui tam matter, and it often turns on the relator's specific knowledge of how widely the underlying conduct may be known within the company.

  • Public Disclosure Bar Analysis

    The public disclosure bar prevents qui tam actions based on fraud that has already been publicly disclosed unless the relator qualifies as an original source. Before filing, counsel should conduct a thorough analysis of public sources (news media, government reports, court filings, congressional testimony, and other public records) to identify any prior disclosure that could trigger the bar. When prior disclosure exists, the analysis turns to whether the relator's information goes beyond what was publicly known and whether the relator qualifies as an original source under the statute. This analysis can determine whether the case is viable at all.

  • Evidence Preservation and Document Handling

    FCA cases require specific, non-public evidence of fraud, often including internal company documents that the relator obtained through their employment. The legality of taking company documents to support a qui tam case is fact-specific and depends on the company's information policies, the relator's role, applicable trade secret law, and the public policy supporting whistleblower activity. Taking too few documents can leave the case without adequate evidentiary support; taking too many or taking them improperly can expose the relator to claims of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, or trade secret misappropriation. Counsel typically advises on document preservation strategies before any documents are removed from the workplace.

  • Sealed Filing and Investigation Period

    FCA complaints are filed under seal, meaning they remain confidential while the government investigates the allegations. The seal period is initially 60 days but is typically extended multiple times in complex matters, often running one to three years. During the seal period, the relator must observe strict confidentiality (including not discussing the case with the defendant or with employees of the defendant) and cooperate with the government's investigation. The lifting of the seal is a strategic event because the defendant learns of the case for the first time and the litigation posture shifts depending on whether the government has intervened.

  • Government Intervention Decision

    The government's decision to intervene is the most consequential strategic event in any qui tam case. Government intervention typically brings additional resources, prosecutorial weight, and credibility to the case, and intervened cases more frequently result in significant settlements. However, the government takes the lead in intervened cases, which limits the relator's control over strategy. Cases the government declines to intervene in can still proceed and produce substantial recoveries, but they require the relator to develop the case without government resources. Working with the government during the investigation period to build the strongest possible case for intervention is a central focus of qui tam practice.

  • Retaliation Protection Planning

    Many qui tam relators are current or former employees of the defendant, and retaliation is a real risk both before and after the complaint is filed (and especially after it is unsealed). Section 3730(h) prohibits retaliation for protected activity under the FCA and provides remedies including reinstatement, double back pay, and damages. Documenting protected activity, preserving evidence of any retaliatory conduct, and timing the relator's departure from the company (if applicable) all benefit from advance planning. Relators considering qui tam action while still employed should discuss timing and risk management with counsel before taking any action that could trigger retaliation.

Statute of Limitations

Filing Windows Under Federal and State Law

A False Claims Act matter is governed by a statute of limitations. Missing it forecloses relief, regardless of how strong the underlying fraud may be. Which deadline applies, and when it begins to run, depends on the specific claim and the jurisdiction involved. Federal and state false claims statutes each set their own periods, and the periods below reflect both frameworks. Confirming which one governs a particular matter is best done directly and early, through a conversation with the firm.

  • Federal FCA Substantive Claims (General Period)

    6 years from the date of the violation

  • Federal FCA Substantive Claims (Extended Period)

    Up to 10 years from the violation, with a 3-year period from government knowledge

  • Federal FCA Retaliation Claims (Section 3730(h))

    3 years from the date of the retaliation

  • State False Claims Act Substantive Claims

    Typically 6 to 10 years, varying by state

  • State False Claims Act Retaliation Claims

    Varies by state, typically 2 to 3 years

Engagement Process

How We Work

Coming forward under the False Claims Act asks a great deal of a relator. Confidentiality shapes how we work with you from the very first conversation, and it does not lift on a fixed schedule. A qui tam matter is not resolved quickly: it plays out over years, much of it while the government investigates quietly in the background and your identity stays protected. We tell relators plainly what the evidence supports and where the exposure lies, including the practical realities of timing and retaliation. That plain accounting is what lets you make each decision with a clear view of where things actually stand.

  • Initial Consultation and Conflict Check

    The initial conversation is conducted under strict confidentiality to protect the potential relator and preserve options for filing. The firm conducts a conflict check against the proposed defendant and any related parties, and discusses the basis for the potential claim at a high level before any specific documents are exchanged. If a viable claim appears to exist and the engagement is mutually agreeable, the firm proceeds to a more detailed evidence and case review under attorney-client privilege.

  • Investigation and Evidence Development

    The firm conducts a structured investigation of the potential claim, including detailed interviews with the relator, review of any documents the relator can lawfully provide, analysis of the applicable legal framework (federal FCA, state FCAs, related statutes), public disclosure analysis, and assessment of the first-to-file landscape. This phase produces the factual record and legal theory that will support the complaint.

  • Drafting and Filing Under Seal

    With the investigation complete, the firm drafts the qui tam complaint to meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard and the FCA's specific pleading requirements. The complaint is filed under seal in federal court, along with a separate disclosure statement that contains the evidence supporting the allegations and is provided to the government but not filed in the public record. The filing triggers the government's investigation period and protects the relator's first-to-file status.

  • Government Investigation Coordination

    During the sealed investigation period, the firm coordinates closely with the DOJ attorneys assigned to the matter and the relevant agency investigators. This includes providing additional evidence as requested, attending interviews and proffer sessions, responding to government information requests, and advocating for the strength of the case to support the government's intervention decision. The investigation phase can last from several months to several years depending on complexity.

  • Post-Seal Litigation

    When the seal is lifted, the case proceeds in active litigation. If the government has intervened, the DOJ takes the lead with the relator participating as a party. If the government has declined, the relator proceeds alone with the firm leading the litigation. The post-seal phase includes the defendant's response to the complaint, discovery, motion practice (including motions to dismiss based on Rule 9(b), public disclosure, and first-to-file challenges), and either settlement or trial.

  • Resolution and Distribution

    FCA matters typically resolve through settlement, which is then approved by the government even in cases where the government did not intervene. The settlement amount is paid to the government, which then distributes the relator's share (15 to 25 percent for intervened cases, 25 to 30 percent for declined cases that proceed to recovery) along with the statutory attorney's fees. The firm coordinates with the government on the timing and structure of the relator's share payment, as well as any related state FCA recoveries from parallel proceedings.

Fee Structure

Cost & Contingency

False Claims Act matters are handled on a contingency fee basis. Relators pay no fees up front, and the firm's compensation comes from a percentage of the relator's share of any recovery. The firm advances all costs of litigation, including investigation costs, expert witness fees, and court filings, and recovers those costs from any settlement or judgment.

FCA matters typically take years to resolve, beginning with a sealed complaint filed in federal court followed by an extended government investigation period. During the government investigation phase, the firm coordinates with DOJ attorneys, provides additional evidence as needed, and prepares for the government's intervention decision. The firm's investment in a qui tam matter is substantial and proceeds at the firm's risk until resolution.

Attorneys

Focused Experience in FCA and Qui Tam Matters

False Claims Act and qui tam matters call for attorneys who work this statute regularly, not as an occasional add-on to a broader litigation practice. From the first evidence review through the sealed investigation period and any litigation that follows unsealing, the attorneys below concentrate their work in this area.

Show
1 / 2
All Attorneys

Services

How We Work This Matter

A qui tam action is more than the substantive law of the False Claims Act. It is also how the firm actually works the matter, procedurally, from first investigation through resolution. The capabilities below are the ones this practice area calls on most.

Sectors

Industries This Practice Serves

Fraud against government programs looks different in every industry it touches. How claims are billed, how contracts are structured, how funds move through an institution all shape how a case gets built. The sectors below are where this practice most often takes on that work.

Experience

Matters We've Handled

The matters shown here reflect the firm's actual work in False Claims Act and qui tam litigation. Each was investigated, prepared, and carried through its own facts before it resolved, on its own timeline. They show the scope of experience the firm brings to this practice area, not a forecast of how any new matter will unfold.

Show
1 / 2

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.

All Matters

Resources

False Claims Act Insights

Qui tam practice turns as much on procedural discipline, seal periods, first-to-file timing, public disclosure analysis, as it does on the underlying fraud theory. The writing below reflects how our attorneys work through those questions on actual matters, offered here as a closer look at the analysis behind the practice.

All Resources

Books

Written From Inside the Fight

A book takes years to research and write, a different order of engagement with a subject than a single brief or client alert. Where our attorneys have published at that length on the issues that shape False Claims Act and qui tam matters, that work is collected below.

Publications

Coverage That Keeps Pace

False Claims Act enforcement shifts with agency priorities, circuit rulings on pleading standards, and the mechanics of qui tam recovery itself. The series gathered here track that shift as it happens, adding a new installment each time the landscape moves rather than summarizing it after the fact. They carry the same ongoing attention we bring to a live matter: watching for the ruling or the policy change before it settles into common knowledge. New entries appear as developments warrant.

Announcements

False Claims Act Activity

What appears below gathers the firm's activity connected to this specific area of practice. False Claims Act litigation rewards sustained, concentrated attention, and this space reflects that discipline rather than occasional involvement.

Why Choose Us

The Judgment These Cases Reward

A False Claims Act matter is often decided long before trial, in the discipline of the investigation and the judgment brought to it. Here is what that looks like in practice.

  • Both Sides of the Table

    Most firms pick a lane and stay in it. We litigate from both sides of complex civil disputes, defending corporate and institutional clients in some matters and pursuing recovery for policyholders, relators, and property owners in others. That range is a working advantage, not a hedge. A firm that only ever defends learns one half of the board; a firm that argues both sides learns how the opposing party builds its case, prices its risk, and decides when to move. When we assess your exposure, we read it the way the other side will, because in other matters, we are the other side. Explore our @practice areas@/practice-areas@ to see where that perspective runs deepest.

  • Trial-Tested, Not Settlement-Default

    Many firms treat trial as a failure of negotiation. We treat readiness for trial as the foundation of every strong defense. A matter that is genuinely prepared to be tried is a matter negotiated from strength, because the other side knows the threat is real. Our litigators build each case as though it will be decided by a jury, which sharpens the strategy whether the resolution ultimately comes at trial, in mediation, or on a dispositive motion. That discipline informs how we staff, how we develop the record, and how we advise you on the choices that matter. Learn how we approach @trial advocacy@/services/trial-advocacy@.

  • One Firm, Four Offices, One Standard

    From our principal office in Sacramento to our teams in Atlanta, Denver, and Austin, Holdsworth & Inkwell operates as a single firm rather than a loose confederation of branches. A client in one region draws on the full bench of the firm, not just the attorneys nearest to them. That structure lets us assemble the right team for a matter regardless of where it sits, and it means our standards for preparation, communication, and judgment travel with the work. See our @office locations@/locations@ and the regions we serve.

  • Continuity from Intake to Appeal

    Description: Litigation that changes hands loses memory. We build matter teams that carry a case from the first assessment through trial and, where necessary, into the appellate courts, so the strategy that shapes early decisions is the same strategy that defends them later. Our @appellate practice@/services/appellate-practice@ works alongside trial teams from the outset, framing and preserving the issues that matter before they are needed, rather than arriving after a verdict to reconstruct what was lost. That continuity protects the coherence of your defense across the full life of a dispute.

  • Industry-Specific Bench Strength

    A defense is only as strong as its grasp of the client's world. Our attorneys bring sustained experience in the sectors where our clients operate, from energy and utilities to healthcare, financial services, government contracting, and manufacturing. That familiarity means we spend less time learning your industry on your dollar and more time applying judgment shaped by matters like yours. Browse the @industries we serve@/sectors@ to see where our experience aligns with your business.

  • Transparent Scoping and Staffing

    Sophisticated clients deserve to know how a matter is staffed, how it is budgeted, and why. We scope engagements deliberately, communicate the reasoning behind our staffing, and keep you informed as a matter develops rather than presenting surprises at billing time. The result is a working relationship built on clarity, where you can plan around our work because you understand it. That transparency is not a courtesy we extend; it is how we think a serious defense should be run.

  • Depth in the Hard Cases

    Some disputes are routine. The ones that bring clients to us usually are not. We have built genuine depth in the areas where the stakes and the complexity are highest, including False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, insurance coverage and recovery, catastrophic wildfire litigation, and large-scale electronic discovery. These are matters that reward sustained focus and punish improvisation, and they are where a firm built for hard problems earns its keep. Read our @insights@/resources@ for how we think about the problems at the edge of our practice.

  • Counsel, Not Just Litigators

    The best outcome is often the dispute that never escalates. Alongside our courtroom work, we counsel clients before litigation begins, helping them assess exposure, preserve their position, and make informed decisions when a problem first surfaces. Our @pre-litigation counseling@/services/pre-litigation-counseling@ brings the same defensive judgment to the choices that precede a filing as we bring to the courtroom, because the value of a defense firm is measured as much by the disputes it helps you avoid as the ones it wins.

A private conversation, on your terms.

Speak With Us, in Confidence

You know what this process involves and what it will ask of you. What happens next starts with a conversation, protected by attorney-client privilege, with someone who has carried these matters from the first call through a sealed filing. Reach out when you're ready.

Contact Us