Substantial Penalties Under the FCA Without Real Damages Violates Eighth Amendment
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.23.12
Using reasoning that could prove useful to other FCA defendants, the court in U.S. ex rel. Bunk v. Birkart Globistics GmbH & Co. (E.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2012), after the jury found over 9,000 false claims based on invoices submitted, refused to award statutory penalties of between $50.2 and $100.4 million. The court held that, when the qui tam relator failed to show that the government suffered any damage, imposing penalties of this magnitude would have violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause and, because it lacked discretion under the FCA to fashion a civil penalty that would be within Constitutional limits, no penalties could be imposed.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
