What is Qui Tam?

Whistleblower Questions

In its simplest form, a qui tam lawsuit is brought by a citizen, known as a “relator” or whistleblower, against a company, person or entity, that he or she knows is cheating the federal or a state government in some way. Since the qui tam suit is brought in the name of the relator on behalf of the government, the government may actually join the case and litigate alongside the relator’s lawyers. Through this web site you can educate yourself on the process, the law, your rights and protection and contact a lawyer who can help advise you. You can also learn about other laws including those administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that allow whistleblowers to seek redress on behalf of the government.

Oral Roberts University, $300,000

Elizabeth Shofner, Justin Brooks Articles, Reuben Guttman Articles, Successes, Traci Buschner Articles

United States ex rel. Shoe v. Oral Roberts University,
District of South Carolina.

GBB attorney’s brought this False Claims Act case against Oklahoma based ORU alleging that the university had fraudulently billed the Department of Education after violating the federal ban on incentive-based compensation. The whistleblower contended that ORU hired Shoe Inc., a student recruiting firm, then paid them with a portion of the tuitions of recruited students. Title IV of the higher education act prohibits any university receiving federal student aid from compensating recruiters based on the number of students successfully recruited. Maurice Shoe, the whistleblower and co-owner of Shoe, was awarded $45,000. 

Boeing Company, $40 million

Dan Guttman Articles, Reuben Guttman Articles, Successes, Traci Buschner Articles

US Ex Rel. Roby v. Boeing Co.,
Southern District of Ohio.

Firm attorneys represented the relator in this False Claims Act suit alleging that the Boeing Company defrauded the US Government by manufacturing and selling the Army helicopters with defective parts. The Government contends that Boeing used faulty transmission gears that resulted in the crash of two helicopters and more than $20 million in damages and government expenses. The nature of this case is closely aligned with the original purpose of the False Claims Act; passed in 1863 it was enacted with the intention of preventing large corporate contractors from defrauding the US Army and Government. 

North Greenville University, $2.5 million

Elizabeth Shofner, Justin Brooks Articles, Reuben Guttman Articles, Successes, Traci Buschner Articles

United States ex rel. Shoe v. North Greenville University,
District of South Carolina.

Firm attorneys pursued a False Claims Act suit against North Greenville University, alleging NGU illegally submitted student aid claims to the government after providing incentive compensation to student recruiters. Title IV of the Higher Education Act makes it a crime for higher education institutions which receive federal student aid money to provide recruiters with commissions, bonuses, or other forms of incentive compensation for recruiting new students. The complaint against NGU accusing of paying a recruitment company which it partially owned, Joined Inc., based on the number of new students their recruiters enrolled.

Lockheed Martin, $5 million

Dr. Caroline Poplin Articles, Elizabeth Shofner, Reuben Guttman Articles, Successes, Traci Buschner Articles

United States, ex rel. John David Tillson, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al.,
Western District of Kentucky.

Lawyers with our firm represented a whistleblower in a suit alleging that Lockheed Martin Corporation and its subsidiaries violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the False Claims Act then illegally billed the Department of Energy. The companies were accused of mischaracterizing their compliance with the RCRA while operating the Padukah Gasseous Diffusion Plant in Padukah, Kentucky, then knowingly submitting false claims for payment for contracts relating to the plant. The Complaint contends specifically that Lockheed Martin violated the RCRA by mismanaging, misreporting, and improperly handling the disposal of waste as intended by the law.

1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 63