1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fourth Circuit Interprets Corporate Knowledge And Materiality Under FCA

Fourth Circuit Interprets Corporate Knowledge And Materiality Under FCA

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.08.04

In United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. (Dec. 19, 2003), the Fourth Circuit upheld a civil penalty of $195,000 ($7500 times 26 invoices) because the false cert "negatively affected the integrity of the bidding process," although zero actual damages were proven. The court held that (a) the False Claims Act's "knowledge" element was satisfied when one employee of the corporate defendant had knowledge of the facts making the corporation's certification false, even though there was no evidence that the same employee knew that the cert was required or even that it had been submitted; and (b) the false cert (that no organizational conflict of interest (OCI) existed in connection with a subcontract award) was "material" because it would have "had a natural tendency to influence" the government's decision to fund the subcontract "if it had known the full details" at the time of award, even though the government in fact concluded that no OCI existed when it subsequently learned of the issue and continued to pay for the subcontract work thereafter.

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