May 17, 2012

Amendments To New York State False Claims Act Encourage Qui Tam Actions

On August 13, 2010, effective August 27, 2010, the New York legislature enacted Chapter 379, turbo-charging the New York False Claims Act (“FCA”), N.Y. State Fin. Law § 187 et seq., and providing would-be whistleblowers with powerful new incentives to file qui tam actions. The revised New York FCA generally adopts the provisions recently added to the federal FCA.  New York’s amended FCA also differs from its federal and sister state counterparts in three key ways.
 

First, with the enactment of Chapter 379, liability under the New York FCA now extends to false or fraudulent claims, records, or statements made under the State tax laws. Pursuant to Section 189, violations of the State tax code are actionable under the New York FCA so long as “the net income or sales of the person [including any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity] against whom the action is brought equals or exceeds one million dollars for any taxable year” and “the damages pleaded in such action exceed three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.” If these requirements are satisfied, a defendant faces potential FCA penalties of three times the amount of the tax underpayment, plus $6,000 to $12,000 for each false claim, record, or statement. In an action brought under the FCA, the defendant need not have knowingly or intentionally violated the tax code. A false tax return submitted in “reckless disregard” of the law is sufficient. While the million dollar net income threshold will exempt many individuals, it provides little shelter for most businesses. 

Second, the amended New York FCA provides increased protections for qui tam plaintiffs against retaliation for their role in bringing a whistleblower action. The law’s newly-expanded anti-retaliation provisions create a comprehensive scheme covering “any current or former employee, contractor, or agent of any private or public employer who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment, or otherwise harmed or penalized by an employer, or prospective employer, because of lawful acts done . . . in furtherance of an action brought under this article.”

The third, and perhaps most significant, change to the New York FCA is the immunity (and encouragement) it appears to provide to current employees, contractors, and agents, who steal confidential or otherwise sensitive documents from their workplace to help beef up FCA claims against their employers. For the purposes of the FCA, a “lawful act” includes “obtaining or transmitting to the state, a local government, a qui tam plaintiff, or private counsel solely employed to investigate, potentially file, or file a cause of action under [the FCA], documents, data, correspondence, electronic mail, or any other information.”  Significantly, this immunity attaches even if the removal of such materials “may violate a contract, employment term, or duty owed to the employer or contractor.” Although the law attempts to prevent abuse of this provision by limiting it only to “efforts to stop one or more violations of [the FCA],” its tacit promotion of document theft is likely to result in many cats escaping from many bags. Further, this provision appears to apply equally to private and public employees, suggesting that it is now permissible for government workers to steal government documents for the benefit of a private whistleblower lawsuit.

These, as well as other, amendments to the New York FCA have further sharpened the teeth of an already potent piece of legislation. It is unclear how the Courts will apply the revised law. As it is written, however, the New York FCA appears to create unprecedented levels of liability for businesses (especially those who file New York tax returns) and equally impressive levels of security for whistleblowers, government investigators, and the FCA plaintiffs’ bar. 

Copyright © 2012, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Associate

Anthony Moshirnia is an associate in the Firm's Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group.  Mr. Moshirnia has significant experience in pre-trial advocacy and trial preparation, including, drafting and opposing pleadings, propounding and responding to discovery, appearing in court, and consulting witnesses. 

213-617-5503

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.