1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Denies Fraud Counterclaims for Lack of Scienter

CFC Denies Fraud Counterclaims for Lack of Scienter

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.08.13

In response to a contractor's CDA claim for the cancellation of two purchase orders for printed circuit cards when the contractor manufactured the parts itself rather than providing the parts from specified approved sources, the government in Ulysses, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 30, 2013), brought counterclaims for fraud under the False Claims Act, the fraud provision of the Contract Disputes Act, and the Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act. The CFC denied them all, holding that the contractor did not act in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of its claims because neither the RFQ nor the contractor's quotation leading to the purchase order specified a particular source and, therefore, its erroneous interpretation of the purchase orders "was not so implausible as to be frivolous" and because it had advised the government that it believed it was an approved source, "making this a classic case for application of the Government knowledge defense."


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights