1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SOL for Whom? Supreme Court Agrees To Review Deepening Disagreement on FCA’s Statute of Limitations Tolling Provision

SOL for Whom? Supreme Court Agrees To Review Deepening Disagreement on FCA’s Statute of Limitations Tolling Provision

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.26.18

On Friday, November 16, 2018, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to address a widening circuit split over the applicability of the FCA’s tolling provision. The FCA’s statute of limitations provides that actions may not be brought more than six years after the violation occurred or “more than 3 years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last.” 31 U.SC. § 3731(b)(2). This second prong of the statute is sometimes referred to as the FCA’s tolling provision. Earlier this year, in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy Inc., (discussed by C&M attorneys here) the Eleventh Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that the FCA’s tolling provision is applicable to qui tam actions even when the government declines to intervene, deepening a split with the Fourth and Tenth Circuits, which have interpreted that provision to apply only to actions brought by the government. The widening circuit split encourages forum-shopping by relators seeking to bring claims reaching years back in time and, in turn, creates significant uncertainty for defendants. Notably, the Eleventh Circuit in Hunt also broke with the Ninth Circuit to hold that the tolling period in non-intervened qui tam actions triggered by a government official’s knowledge of the fraud, not the relator’s. As a result of these conflicting if not confusing interpretations of the FCA’s statute of limitations, whether a qui tam suit is time-barred has depended on where, and not just when, it was brought. The Supreme Court’s review of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling will hopefully put an end to the uncertainties and confusion surrounding these conflicting applications of the FCA’s statute of limitations across all jurisdictions.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24

California Office of Health Care Affordability Notice Requirement for Material Change Transactions Closing on or After April 1, 2024

Starting next week, on April 1st, health care entities in California closing “material change transactions” will be required to notify California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) and potentially undergo an extensive review process prior to closing. The new review process will impact a broad range of providers, payers, delivery systems, and pharmacy benefit managers with either a current California footprint or a plan to expand into the California market. While health care service plans in California are already subject to an extensive transaction approval process by the Department of Managed Health Care, other health care entities in California have not been required to file notices of transactions historically, and so the notice requirement will have a significant impact on how health care entities need to structure and close deals in California, and the timing on which closing is permitted to occur....