On January 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit determined that, amid a circuit split, the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was viable in the Fourth Circuit. United States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 635 n.3 (4th Cir. 2015) (“contractual implied certification claims can be viable under the FCA
Broker-Dealer Audits: PCAOB Disciplinary Orders and Extraordinary Cooperation Credit
Despite a d
ecreased budget in 2015, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) Chairman James R. Doty believed there would be enough resources to continue with the PCAOB’s strategic plan to serve as the oversight body Congress envisioned. As we reported back in February, Doty noted that the 2015 budget would allow for 75
CFPB Drives Action Against Auto-Finance Company
Putting the brakes on what it viewed as aggressive debt-collection tactics, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed suit in Ohio federal court on June 17, 2015, against Security National Automotive Acceptance Company LLC (SNAAC) for several violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), specifically pertaining to Sections 1031 &
CFPB Asserts Sweeping RESPA Enforcement Authority In First Appellate Decision
In a decision asserting broad authority for the CFPB and which is certain to set the tone for future CFPB appellate rulings, Bureau director Richard Cordray recently issued the Bureau’s first decision from an appeal of a Bureau administrative enforcement action. The decision, issued June 4, generally affirmed a 2014 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision
With Rule-Making Expected, CFPB’s March 2015 Arbitration Study Continues to Draw Attention
I
n a recent letter, 58 members of Congress asked the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to exercise its rule-making authority and ban mandatory arbitration provisions in consumer financial agreements. In support of their request, the authors cite the CFPB’s March 2015 internal study on arbitration, which the CFPB conducted pursuant to Section 1028
KBR v. Carter–Supreme Court Holds that the First-to-File Bar Only Applies to Pending Cases
On Wednesday the Supreme Court, in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, No. 12-1497 (2015), held that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WSLA”) only tolls the statute of limitations for criminal offenses, not civil claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The Court also held that the
Employer Antiretaliation Liability to Employees that Blow the Whistle against Former, Unrelated employers?
Does the False Claims Act’s antiretaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1), apply to an “employer that fire[s] an employee after discovering that the employee was a whistleblower and relator in an ongoing qui tam action under the FCA against his former, unrelated employer”? Cestra v. Mylan, Inc, No. 14-825, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67069 (W.D.
CFPB Remains Noncommittal Regarding Restrained Enforcement Period for TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosures Rule
The TILA/RESPA integrated disclosures (TRID) rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act takes effect on August 1, 2015. Once effective, the TRID will drastically alter, among other things, the pre-closing disclosures that creditors, mortgage brokers and settlement agents must provide to borrowers under
CFPB Fines Military Allotment Processor $3.1 Million
Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a consent order with Fort Knox National Co. and its subsidiary Military Assistance Co. (MAC), alleging that the companies duped U.S. military service members into paying millions of dollars in hidden fees.
Fort Knox National Co., through MAC, is one of the largest processors of military
Pro Se Relators May Not Pursue Qui Tam Actions on Behalf of the Government
In Gunn v. Credit Suisse Group AG., No. 13-4738, 2015 WL 1787011, — F. App’x — (3d Cir. Apr. 21, 2015) (unpublished), the Third Circuit joined the District of Columbia, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, in holding that a pro se relator cannot maintain a qui tam action after the government has declined