Article by David W. Ogden , Jonathan E. Paikin , Jennifer M. O'Connor , Todd R. Steggerda , Jonathan G. Cedarbaum , Carl J. Nichols , Christopher E. Babbitt , Boyd M. Johnson III , Robin L. Baker , Karen F. Green and Stephen A. Jonas

INTRODUCTION

The last few years have ushered in an unprecedented wave of activity by Congress, the Obama Administration, and the courts in the False Claims Act (FCA) arena. This renewed focus by all three branches of government means that companies doing business with the federal government must remain vigilant of these changes in order to avoid liability. The 2009 and 2010 amendments to the FCA are giving rise to new and expanded legal theories. The growing number of FCA cases means that courts will continue to have numerous opportunities to redraw the boundaries of the Act. And the Obama Administration has showed no signs of backing off from its aggressive enforcement of the Act, including its efforts to increase the number and size of blockbuster settlements. Since January 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has recovered $8.7 billion through FCA cases—the largest three-year recovery total in the Department of Justice's history and more than one-fourth of the total FCA recoveries over the last 25 years.1

Companies should pay attention to these developments in order to strengthen their internal compliance mechanisms to resolve potential problems early and internally—before they lead to protracted litigation and potentially hefty fines and other penalties. To help our clients stay ahead of the curve, WilmerHale provides updates about significant changes in FCA law, analyzing what these developments mean as a practical matter, and suggesting compliance tips to avoid potential liability. At the end of each year, we will look back and identify major developments and translate these into compliance tips.

Here is our False Claims Act 2011 Year-In-Review. First, we summarize the FCA and the key provisions that every company working with the government should know. Next, we explain Congress's watershed FCA amendments during the last few years. Then, we discuss the Obama Administration's stepped-up enforcement activities. From there, we analyze the important decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court and other federal courts that are reshaping the contours of FCA law. Finally, we synthesize all of this information to identify some key trends in the FCA arena and suggest some tips for 2012.

OVERVIEW OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

The False Claims Act was passed during the Civil War to combat fraud against the government. The Act imposes liability on any person or corporation who "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment" to the federal government.2 The FCA's scope is remarkably broad. Any company that does business with the government—even indirectly—may face FCA damages and penalties.

Traditionally, a company violates the FCA when it knowingly and materially misrepresents the nature of a good or service that it provides to the government, and that misrepresentation—either in contractual language or other communications—leads to a government payment. A company also can be liable for conspiring to present a false claim to the government or causing a third party to submit a false claim.3 In addition, companies can incur "reverse" false claims liability if they improperly conceal, avoid or decrease an obligation to pay the government.4

An FCA case can originate in two ways. First, the United States itself can bring a case. Second, a private litigant (called a "relator") can bring an action on behalf of the United States under the FCA's qui tam provision.5 Relators can receive between 15 and 30 percent of any judgment or settlement in the government's favor.6 When a relator files a qui tam case, the case remains under seal while the DOJ investigates the claim. Following the investigation, the DOJ can move to dismiss the case, settle with the defendant, intervene as a plaintiff, or decline to intervene but allow the relator to pursue the case.

FCA damages and penalties can be enormous. Standard damages are treble the loss suffered by the government. However, if the company voluntarily discloses a violation as described in the Act, damages are reduced from treble to double.7 Not only do companies face treble damages, but they also face a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 per "false claim"—which can become numerous if, for example, companies submit regular invoices to the government for ongoing services.8 Due to the damages and penalties at stake, FCA claims are most commonly filed against companies that receive substantial and regular government payments, such as health care and defense companies.

CONGRESSIONAL AND REGULATORY UPDATE: EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

False Claims Act Amendments That Remained Important in 2011

Congressional interest in the False Claims Act has increased significantly during the last few years, as evidenced by the passage of monumental FCA amendments in 2009 and 2010 after more than two decades of Congressional inaction. These recent laws continue to have important repercussions for companies doing business with the federal government because they expanded the types of cases that may be brought. The boundaries of these amendments will continue to be tested in litigation.

The uptick in legislative activity began in 2009 when Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA), which amended several FCA provisions.9 In particular, FERA:

  • expanded liability for "reverse" false claims by imposing liability for knowingly or recklessly retaining overpayments from the government, even in the absence of any false statement;10
  • enabled liability for claims presented not only to the government but also to entities administering government funds;11
  • allowed the Department of Justice to conduct longer investigations by permitting the government's complaint to relate back to the filing of the relator's complaint; and12
  • Expanded the prohibition on retaliation against relators to cover contractors and agents in addition to employees.13

The March 2010 health care reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also made important changes to the FCA, primarily by significantly narrowing the public disclosure bar against qui tam actions by relators.14 Because of PPACA, defendants can no longer use information in certain types of public sources (such as state and local administrative reports) to demonstrate that a relator's claim was publicly disclosed prior to the complaint.15 PPACA also changed public disclosure from a jurisdictional bar to an affirmative defense and forbade dismissal under this defense if the government opposes dismissal.16 PPACA also expanded the definition of an "original source" (allowing the relator to have "independent knowledge that materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations" instead of "direct knowledge").17 Additionally, under PPACA, a company must report and return a Medicare or Medicaid overpayment within 60 days of discovery to avoid FCA liability.18

Also in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act strengthened the FCA provisions prohibiting retaliation against whistleblowers.19 The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the definition of protected conduct to include employees' lawful efforts to investigate or stop FCA violations.20

Relators have taken advantage of the FERA, PPACA, and Dodd-Frank amendments by filing an increasing number of qui tam cases in recent years. While the annual number of qui tam cases averaged in the double digits in the late 1980s, it reached 573 in 2010 and more than 630 in 2011.21 Relators and the federal government have collected billions of dollars in damages and penalties in settlements and judgments, and many of these settlements and judgments dwarfed the actual damages suffered by the government.

Congressional Activity in 2011

Although no bills were enacted in 2011, there was False Claims Act and whistleblower-related activity in both the House and Senate, including congressional inquiries questioning whether the recent amendments have succeeded in striking the appropriate balance between facilitating internal corporate resolution and prevention of unlawful behavior on the one hand, and promoting whistleblower activity on the other hand.

  • The Senate passed S. 633, the "Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act." The bill focuses on penalizing businesses that misrepresent themselves as small businesses or as owned and controlled by, for example, service-disabled veterans. The bill expands remedies for such a misrepresentation to include civil remedies available under the False Claims Act, such as treble damages. The bill also allows for recovery of the full amount received from the federal government, even if work was performed in return for the payments made, or losses sustained. Although a companion bill was introduced in the House (H.R. 2131), no action has been taken.
  • The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out S. 890, the "Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act," co-sponsored by Chairman Patrick Leahy and Ranking Member Charles Grassley. The bill would require the Attorney General to report annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on DOJ settlements and compromises of claims or actions that alleged FCA violations or major frauds against the United States and sought damages of more than $100,000.
  • One other area attracting attention in the Senate is the protection of government contractors who serve as whistleblowers. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on December 6, 2011 focusing on S. 241, the "Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act." This proposed piece of legislation would bolster whistleblower protections for government contractors and other non-federal employees.
  • The House activity reflected a slightly different approach to whistleblowers this year, although it is not focused on the False Claims Act. The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets reported out H.R. 2483, the "Whistleblower Improvement Act," on a 19(R)-14(D) party line vote. The bill, which addressed Dodd-Frank, would require whistleblowers to report misconduct to their employers before notifying the SEC in order to be eligible for a monetary award, unless the employers do not have either an anti-retaliation policy or an anonymous reporting system in place. Supporters said this provision would allow correction of small-scale misconduct to be corrected internally more quickly than through SEC involvement. The bill also would make a whistleblower award discretionary instead of mandatory, and would repeal the minimum award requirement. H.R. 2483 was a primary focus of a May 11 subcommittee hearing on "Legislative Proposals to Address the Negative Consequences of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision." Although the bill would not impact the False Claims Act itself, it represents a different direction from the significant expansion of whistleblower mechanisms over the past few years.

Primary Regulatory Activity in 2011

On March 21, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) completed a review of state false claims act equivalents to determine whether those state laws were sufficient to qualify the states for an increased share of monetary recovery from certain lawsuits.22 To qualify for the financial incentive, a state's false claims act must:

  • establish liability to the state for false or fraudulent claims, as described in the federal FCA, with respect to Medicaid spending;
  • contain provisions that are at least as effective in rewarding and facilitating qui tam actions for false or fraudulent claims as those described in the FCA;
  • contain a requirement for filing an action under seal for 60 days with review by the State Attorney General; and
  • contain a civil penalty that is not less than the amount of the civil penalty authorized under the FCA.23

The OIG concluded that, due to recent amendments to the federal FCA in 2009 and 2010, numerous state laws were no longer in compliance. For these states, which included California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas, the OIG granted a two-year grace period ending on March 31, 2013, during which time the states can update and resubmit their amended state false claims acts to the OIG for approval and continue to receive the 10 percent incentive.

In addition, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in December 2011 issued a "direct final rule," effective February 29, 2012, adding a new clause to the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation entitled "Labor Law Violations." This new clause requires every USDA contractor to certify that they are "in compliance with all applicable labor laws" and that, to the best of their knowledge, all of their subcontractors (at any tier) and suppliers are also in compliance with all applicable labor laws. The rule explicitly states that the USDA "considers certification under this clause to be a certification for purposes of the False Claims Act."

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN SETTLEMENTS & JUDGMENTS: AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Since the False Claims Act was amended in 1986, the federal government has recovered more than $30 billion in settlements and judgments.24 Helped in recent years by increasingly aggressive relators, the Department of Justice has accelerated its efforts and shown dramatic results. Indeed, since January 2009, the government has recovered $8.7 billion25—more than triple the annual rate of recovery of the 1986– 2008 time period. The acceleration in enforcement activity has been intentional. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, explained:

Twenty-eight percent of the recoveries in the last 25 years were obtained since President Obama took office. These record-setting results reflect the extraordinary determination and effort that this administration, and Attorney General Eric Holder in particular, have put into rooting out fraud, recovering taxpayer money and protecting the integrity of government programs.26

In 2011, the federal government continued its aggressive enforcement efforts. For the second year in a row, the government recovered more than $3 billion in civil settlements and judgments under the False Claims Act.27 The overwhelming majority, $2.8 billion, was recovered under the qui tam provisions.28 That is not surprising given that the number of qui tam lawsuits filed in 2011 easily broke the annual record.29 Relators filed 638 qui tam lawsuits in 2011─roughly a 10% increase over the 573 such lawsuits filed in 2010 (which was the previous record), and almost a 50% increase over 2009, when 433 qui tam lawsuits were filed.30

The following chart details the DOJ's overall increased FCA enforcement, along with the upward trend in qui tam lawsuits over the last 25 years:31

Noteworthy Settlements

As has been the case for the past decade, the vast majority of the DOJ's recoveries occurred in the health care sector. In 2011, approximately $2.4 billion of the $3 billion in FCA settlements and judgments was obtained from companies operating in the health care industry.32 However, the health care industry was not the only focus of the DOJ in 2011. Significant settlements occurred in other industries that conduct business with the federal government, including more general government procurement contractors, which accounted for more than $350 million of the 2011 recovery.33

The following were some of the most significant settlement announcements in the past year.

Health care

  • Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: In a February press release, the DOJ announced that Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. agreed to pay $103 million in FCA civil damages, along with $100.5 million in criminal penalties for misdemeanor misbranding, to resolve allegations that the company promoted the sale of Zonegran for off-label uses. The federal share of the FCA civil settlement was $59 million. Elan also agreed to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the OIG. The agreement required Elan to implement procedures and reviews to avoid and detect conduct similar to that alleged in the qui tam lawsuit.34
  • Medline Industries, Inc.: Medline Industries, Inc. paid $85 million to settle allegations that it violated the FCA by giving kickbacks to health care providers that purchase medical products under Medicare and Medicaid. Notably, the government declined to intervene in the suit. This settlement is one of the largest FCA settlements in which the government did not intervene.35
  • Average Wholesale Price Litigation Brought By Ven-A-Care: In 2011, a number of pharmaceutical companies agreed to settle state and federal FCA claims brought by Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys Inc. The qui tam lawsuits claimed that the companies caused Medicaid to overpay for drugs by inflating the reported "Average Wholesale Price." The settlements amounts from 2011 ranged from $29.8 million to $150 million. Ven-A-Care has settled more than 20 lawsuits since 2000, recovering about $3 billion for state and federal governments, of which, Ven- A-Care received more than $400 million. The consolidated litigation is still ongoing.36
  • Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.: Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. agreed to pay approximately $130 million in FCA civil damages to the Medicaid and Veterans Affairs programs, along with a $20 million criminal penalty for health care-fraud conspiracy, to resolve allegations that Maxim billed for services not rendered, services that were not documented properly, and services performed by unlicensed offices. The federal government's share was $70 million. Maxim also agreed to a corporate integrity agreement with the OIG, which required certain actions and monitoring under the OIG's supervision. Finally, Maxim agreed to retain and pay an independent monitor to review its business operations and regularly report upon the company's compliance with federal and state health care laws, regulations, and programs.37
  • LHC Group Inc.: LHC Group Inc. agreed to pay $65 million plus interest to resolve an FCA qui tam suit alleging that it improperly billed Medicare, TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program for home health care services that were not medically necessary and for services rendered to patients who were not homebound. LHC also agreed to a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the OIG, under which the OIG will oversee a review of LHC's fraud prevention efforts.38
  • In addition, several health care companies have issued press releases announcing settlements they have reached in principle. These include GlaxoSmithKline, settling civil and criminal liabilities related to its sales and marketing practices, its use of a Medicaid exception, and its development and marketing of Avandia, in the amount of $3 billion,39 and Amgen, setting aside $780 million to settle federal civil and criminal investigations, state Medicaid claims, and 10 qui tam suits related to its sales and marketing practices.40 Similarly, Abbott Laboratories announced that it had set aside $1.5 billion of litigation reserves related to settlement discussions with the DOJ regarding Depakote.41

Procurement

  • DynCorp International LLC and The Sandi Group: DynCorp International LLC and The Sandi Group (TSG) agreed to pay more than $8.7 million to settle FCA allegations related to DynCorp's contract with the Department of State to provide civilian police training in Iraq. More specifically, DynCorp agreed to pay $7.7 million to resolve allegations that it submitted inflated claims for construction of container camps. DynCorp's subcontractor, TSG, agreed to pay $1.01 million to resolve claims for reimbursement of danger pay that, according to allegations, it falsely claimed to have paid.42
  • Accenture LLP: Accenture LLP agreed to pay $63.675 million to settle allegations that it received kickbacks, inflated prices and rigged bids in connection with federal information technology contracts.43
  • Major Information Technology Settlement: A set of major information technology government contractors agreed to pay $199.5 million plus interest to resolve allegations that the companies failed to disclose their best prices for products and services offered through the GSA's Multiple Award Schedule program. According to DoJ, this is the largest FCA settlement ever obtained by GSA.44

Earlier in the year, one of these companies also agreed to pay $46 million to settle allegations that (1) a company that it acquired in 2010 paid kickbacks for recommendations that federal agencies purchase its products and (2) the acquired company's GSA Schedule contracts were incorrectly priced. Two whistleblowers—who have filed similar suits against other IT companies— originally filed the qui tam suit alleging the improper kickbacks. The United States intervened and, based on an audit conducted by the GSA Office of Inspector General, added the pricing claims.45

Other

  • General Communication Inc.: General Communication Inc. (GCI) paid $1.5 million to settle FCA claims. The settlement resolved allegations that Alaska DigiTel LLC, now owned by GCI, submitted claims for ineligible subscribers under the Low Income Support Program of the Universal Service Fund, which offers free or discounted telephone service to eligible individuals.46
  • BP Amoco: BP Amoco agreed to pay $20.5 million to resolve FCA allegations that BP underpaid royalties owed on natural gas produced from federal and Indian land leases. The United States had initially declined to intervene in the suit, but intervened for the purpose of completing the settlement.47

**CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AND FOOTNOTES IN ITS ENTIRETY **

Footnotes

1 Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Department Recovers $3 Billion in False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2011 (Dec. 19, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/December/11-civ-1665.html.

2 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A).

3 Id.

4 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G).

5 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b), (e)(4). The latter provision attempts to encourage whistleblowers to disclose non-public violations while also preventing opportunistic individuals from filing cases based on information available to the public.

6 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).

7 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)-(2).

8 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).

9 Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617.

10 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G).

11 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii).

12 31 U.S.C. § 3731(c).

13 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

14 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010).

15 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4).

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7j(d).

19 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

20 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1).

21 See Latest Developments in Settlements & Judgments, infra (pp. 5-6) for a chart of annual data on qui tam cases.

22 42 U.S.C § 1396H.

23 Id. at § 1396H(b).

24 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Department Recovers $3 Billion in False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2011 (Dec. 19, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/December/11-civ-1665.html.

25 Id.; see also supra text accompanying note 1.

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 See Civil Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Fraud Statistics – Overview, available at http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms/CFRAUDS_FCA_Statstics.pdf.

30 Id.

31 Id.; "New Matters" represent newly received referrals, investigations, and qui tam actions. Non-qui tam settlements and judgments do not include matters delegated to United States Attorneys' offices.

32 See Press Release, supra note 4.

33 See Press Release, supra note 4.

34 See Press Release, U.S. Atty's Office, Dist. of Mass., Elan Pharmaceuticals Pleads Guilty, Sentenced for Off-Label Marketing of Zonegran (Feb. 28, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/February/ElanSentencingPR.html.

35 See The Health Law Side Bar, Medline Settles False Claims Act Allegations for $85 Million in Spite of Government's Failure to Intervene (Mar. 17, 2011), http://healthlawsidebar.com/?p=178; see also Press Release, United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois, Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office Collected $142.6 Million in Civil and Criminal Actions in Fiscal Year 2011 (Nov. 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2011/pr1116_02.pdf.

36 See Voreacos & Fisk, Bloomberg Businessweek, Actavis Will Pay $118.6 Million to End Drug-Pricing Claims (Jan. 5, 2012), available at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-05/actavis-will-pay-118-6-million-to-end-drug-pricing-claims.html; Rosen, Bloomberg, FDIC Nominee, Investor Fraud, MF Global, Sandoz, Facebook: Compliance (Nov. 18, 2011), available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/fdic-nominee-investor-fraud-mf-global-sandoz-compliance.html; Palmer, Law360, Baxter To Exit Drug Price Inflation MDL For $30M (Oct. 7, 2011), available at http://www.law360.com/articles/276845; Voreacos & Rosenblatt, Bloomberg Businessweek, Watson, Sandoz Pay $145 Million to Settle Drug-Price Case (Sept. 15, 2011), available at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-15/watson-sandoz-pay-145-million-to-settle-drug-price-case.html.

37 See Press Release, U.S. Atty's Office, Dist. of New Jersey, Maxim Healthcare Services Charged with Fraud, Agrees to Pay Approximately $150 million, Enact Reforms After False Billings Revealed as Common Practice (Sept. 12, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/Press/files/Maxim%20News%20Release.html.

38 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Louisiana-Based LHC Group Inc. Agrees to Pay U.S. $65 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations (Sept. 30, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/September/11-civ-1299.html.

39 See Press Release, GlaxoSmithKline, GlaxoSmithKline Reaches Agreement in Principle to Resolve Multiple Investigations with U.S. Government (Nov. 3, 2011), available at http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2011/2011-pressrelease-710182.htm.

40 See Press Release, Amgen, Amgen's Third Quarter 2011 Revenue and Adjusted Earnings Per Share (EPS) Each Increased 3 Percent to $3.9 Billion and $1.40 (Oct. 24, 2011), available at http://www.amgen.com/media/media_pr_detail.jsp?year=2011&releaseID+1620695.

41 See Press Release, Abbott, Abbott Reports Strong Ongoing Third Quarter Results; Confirms Double-Digit Ongoing Earnings Growth Outlook for 2011 (Oct. 19, 2011), available at http://www.abbott.com/news-media/press-releases/2011-oct19.htm.

42 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Dyncorp International LLC and the Sandi Group Pay U.S. More Than $8.7 Million to Resolve False Claims Allegations (Apr. 22, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-civ-513.html..

43 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Accenture Pays U.S. $63.675 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations (Sept. 12, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/September/11-civ-1167.html.

44 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Oracle Agrees to Pay U.S. $199.5 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Lawsuit (Oct. 6, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/October/11-civ-1329.html.

45 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Oracle America to Pay United States $46 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Against Sun Microsystems (Jan. 31, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/January/11-civ-128.html.

46 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Alaska-Based Company Pays U.S. More Than $1.5 Million to Settle False Claims Allegations (Feb. 22, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-civ-218.html.

47 See Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, BP Amoco to Pay U.S. $20.5 Million to Resolve Allegations of Royalty Underpayments from Indian and Federal Lands (Sept. 16, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/op/pr/2011/September/11-civ-1201.html

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.