FCA Now

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) last month announced a new blockbuster settlement agreement under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq (“FCA”), involving alleged violations of the Stark law and other efforts to defraud federal and state healthcare programs. The agreement also resolved the government’s allegations that the defendants—having allegedly engaged in healthcare fraud—further violated the FCA by obtaining a loan through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or “Program”) while certifying they were not engaged in illegal activities. Although this settlement appears principally to address allegations of healthcare fraud, the resolution of FCA claims involving alleged PPP fraud highlights the government’s efforts to root out those who attempt to defraud COVID-19 relief programs. In the settlement agreement, the U.S. government (“government”), the State of Florida (“Florida”), and several relators contend that Physician Partners of America, LLC (“PPOA, LLC”), an entity owned by Dr. Rodolfo Gari that manages or indirectly owns several other entities, Dr. Gari, and Dr. Abraham Rivera, the medical director of these entities (collectively, “PPOA”), committed various FCA violations. Regarding the PPP FCA claim, the government alleges in the settlement agreement that PPOA, LLC obtained a PPP loan[1] from Centennial Bank in April 2020. Under Program rules, a borrower had to certify that it was not engaged in any illegal activities under federal, state, or local law. The government contends that PPOA’s certification was false because PPOA, at the time it applied for PPP funds, pursued a scheme to overbill and defraud federal healthcare programs. Specifically, the government alleged (i) that PPOA violated the Stark Law, the physician self-referral law, by paying kickbacks to physicians working at PPOA-managed entities who referred patients to PPOA for reimbursable services; (ii) that PPOA submitted false claims to federal healthcare programs by billing for services and medical testing at the highest rate available despite these services or tests not being medically necessary or reasonable for each individual patient; and (iii) that PPOA improperly billed Medicare at a higher rate for “monitored anesthesia care” when PPOA in fact provided only local anesthesia. Furthermore, the government and Florida alleged that PPOA submitted false claims to federal and state healthcare programs for scheduling unnecessary biweekly telemedicine appointments for Florida patients after Florida paused non-emergency medical procedures in the wake of the pandemic. PPOA has not admitted liability regarding any of the settlement agreement’s allegations. However, under the terms of the agreement, PPOA will pay the government and Florida the sum of $24,500,000, with 1.625% interest accruing as of November 8, 2021. The terms of the settlement schedule payments so that PPOA shall pay the government $10,000,000 plus interest within seven (7) days after the agreement’s effective date and pay the remaining $14,500,000 plus interest to the government within ninety (90) days of the agreement’s effective date. Further, the terms allocate the funds so that the government will receive $24,491,213.80 plus interest, of which $11,550.692.58 is restitution, and Florida will receive $8,786.20 plus interest, of which $4,393.10 is restitution. Unlike previous settlement agreements, the terms of this agreement do not state what specific allocation of the settlement funds apply to settle the FCA allegation involving the false certification on the PPP loan application. Past agreements have required the borrower to reimburse the Small Business Administration for paying a processing fee to the lender as well as the full balance of the loan. See, e.g., Zen Solutions, Inc., discussed further here. This settlement agreement also states that the government and the numerous relators involved have not yet reached an agreement as to each relator’s share of the recovery. Moreover, while the settlement agreement’s terms contain typical release language, the terms state that two of the relator’s claims against a non-party entity are reserved. Thus, there could be further developments unfolding in the future. To stay updated on these developing topics, check out Dorsey’s FCA Now blog and FCA Case Tracker for the latest FCA and PPP fraud news. [1] Although not stated in the Settlement Agreement, publicly available data shows that PPOA, LLC obtained a first draw PPP loan of $5,978,709.00 on April 13, 2020.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) continues rolling out new settlement agreements related to COVID-19 fraud—highlighting the government’s and a common relator’s efforts to crack down on those alleged to have improperly received monies through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or “Program”). A new settlement agreement once again showcases these trends and illustrates the civil liability that businesses and individuals may face under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq (“FCA”) for double-dipping into PPP loan funds made available in 2020 during the height of the pandemic. On April 21, 2022, the DOJ announced a settlement agreement between the U.S. government, Bryan Quesenberry (“Relator”), and Daniel Markus, Inc. (“DMI”) and Margarita Risis, DMI’s sole shareholder (collectively, “DMI” or “Defendants”). Prior to the execution of this settlement agreement, on September 12, 2020, Relator filed a qui tam suit against DMI under the FCA in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Relator alleged that DMI “unlawfully applied for and received two loans under the [PPP]” and certified falsely that it would receive only one PPP loan. To settle these allegations, DMI, which operated several pawn shops in New Jersey, executed the settlement agreement, which explained these allegations further. Specifically, the government alleges in the settlement agreement that in April 2020 DMI obtained a first draw PPP loan of $242,849 from “Lender 1,” a bank based in Salt Lake City, Utah. The government contends that DMI certified to the following statement: “During the period beginning on February 15, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020, the Applicant [DMI] has not and will not receive another loan under the [PPP].” Yet, the government further alleges in the settlement agreement that DMI, again in April 2020, obtained a second first draw PPP loan of $268,300 from “Lender 2,” a bank based in McLean, Virginia. Based on its receipt of this second loan, the government alleges, according to the settlement agreement, that DMI’s certifications on the first draw loan were false. In settling these allegations, in addition to those the government contends it has under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1833(a) (“FIRREA”), the terms of the settlement agreement state that DMI shall pay the government $50,000 within two weeks of the date of the settlement agreement. The terms further state that DMI agrees not to seek forgiveness of the first loan from Lender 1 but shall instead repay Lender 1 within a year of the date of the settlement agreement. Finally, the terms state that Relator shall be entitled to recover $3,541.05 following DMI’s payment of $50,000. As reported previously, Relator Brian Quesenberry is no stranger to qui tam litigation, as he has brought numerous other FCA actions recently, including the Sextant Marine settlement and the Zen Solutions settlement.  To stay updated on these developing topics, check out Dorsey’s FCA Now blog and FCA Case Tracker for the latest FCA and PPP fraud news.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) continues racking up more settlement agreements under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq (“FCA”) with companies and individuals alleged to have improperly used funds received through the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or “Program”). The latest PPP fraud settlement illustrates that attempts to fraudulently obtain forgiveness of PPP loans used for ineligible expenses invites potential liability under the FCA in addition to liability under its criminal counterpart, 18 U.S.C. § 287. On March 25, 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington announced a global criminal and civil settlement between the U.S. government and HPM Corporation (“HPMC’), Grover C. Mooers (“Mr. Mooers”), and Hollie P. Mooers (“Ms. Mooers”) (collectively, “Defendants”). This global criminal and civil settlement included a criminal Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“DPA”) and a civil FCA Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) (collectively, “Agreements”). Under the Agreements, the government alleged that Defendants knowingly submitted false statements and certifications to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) when seeking forgiveness of a PPP loan. Specifically, the Defendants admitted the following facts in the Agreements: On April 3, 2020, HPMC, through Mr. Mooers, applied for a PPP loan, which required him to certify that the funds would be used for Program-eligible purposes, like payroll or certain mortgage interest payments. The SBA approved the loan, and HPMC received $1,344,700 on April 17, 2020. Upon receipt of these funds, HPMC held the funds in a checking account for over a year, unused. On April 6, 2021, while the loan proceeds still sat idle in HPMC’s checking account, HPMC applied for forgiveness. Mr. Mooers certified on the loan forgiveness application that (i) the money HPMC received a year ago had been used for Program-eligible expenses, (ii) that Mr. Mooers had verified that the funds sought to be forgiven were used for Program-eligible expenses, (iii) that all statements made in the application were true and correct, and (iv) that Mr. Mooers understood the government could recover the loan amounts and civil or criminal penalties for knowingly using these funds for unauthorized purposes. The SBA then forgave the full loan amount—both principal and interest totaling $1,358,184.35—on April 13, 2021, thereby transferring this amount to HPMC’s lender (who also received a lender fee of $40,341.00 from the government). However, according to the admitted facts in the Agreements, HPMC did not use its PPP loan for Program-eligible purposes. In fact, after receiving forgiveness of the loan, on July 1, 2021, the sum of $1,344,700 was transferred from HPMC to Mr. and Ms. Mooers’ personal checking account at Community Bank, where they later distributed the funds to various charities. The Agreements also recognize that HPMC was a government contractor for the Department of Energy (“DOE”), and that DOE had continued making contract payments to HPMC from April 3, 2020 through April 6, 2021—the date HPMC applied for PPP funds and the date that HPMC applied for forgiveness of those funds. Based on these admitted facts, the Settlement Agreement’s terms require HPMC to pay a total of $2,939,400, which accounts for $1,344,700 as restitution for the original loan amount and another $1,344,700 as a penalty to the U.S. government. Further, the Settlement Agreement’s terms require Mr. and Ms. Mooers to pay $250,000 as a penalty to the United States, and that Mr. Mooers steps down from his current role at HPMC and that he shall not serve any other role in managing or advising HPMC for at least three years. Under the DPA, HPMC waived indictment and consented to the filing of a one-count information alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 for submitting false and fraudulent claims to the United States.  The government agreed to defer prosecution of the charge for three years, contingent upon, inter alia, HPMC acknowledging responsibility for its conduct, making the payments required under the Settlement Agreement, undertaking an independent audit of HPMC’s financial practices, preventing Mr. Mooers from serving in any managerial capacity, and cooperating fully with the government.  If HPMC complies with its obligations, the government will dismiss the charge at the end of the three-year deferral period. The Agreements showcase the civil and criminal consequences that businesses and individuals may face if seeking forgiveness of PPP loans where those funds have been used improperly. To stay updated on these developing topics, check out Dorsey’s FCA Now blog and FCA Case Tracker for the latest FCA and PPP fraud news.

Fresh off the new year, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) continues to announce new settlements under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq (“FCA”)—further cementing the trend of private parties suing borrowers for violating requirements of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or the “Program”). Two new FCA settlements were announced earlier this month involving relators’ allegations that borrowers made false statements when applying for PPP loans in violation of Program rules. The first settlement, coming from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, was announced on February 7, 2022. According to the settlement agreement, on June 19, 2020, relator Pat L. Christopher filed a qui tam action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Christopher Construction Company, Inc. (“CCC”) and Dennis Christopher. Relator alleged that CCC and Dennis Christopher violated Program rules by causing the submission of a false claim for payment. Specifically, according to the settlement agreement, the government then contends that around April 27, 2020, CCC and Dennis Christopher falsely stated on an application for PPP funds that no individual owner of CCC holding at least 20% of the company’s stock was then indicted or subject to criminal charges. The government further alleged that CCC and Dennis Christopher, at the time of submitting the application, knew that relator owned more than 20% of CCC’s stock and knew that relator had been indicted for theft, embezzlement, and tax fraud. Based on this false statement, the government asserts CCC—which received $255,507 in PPP funds—knowingly caused its lender to submit a false claim to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) for $12,775 in loan processing fees. The settlement agreement states that CCC and Dennis Christopher have returned the value of the PPP loan to the lender as part of the settlement. Further, the terms of the settlement agreement require CCC and Christopher to pay the government a total of $53,325 in civil penalties and damages under the FCA—$12,755 of which represents restitution to the SBA for paying the processing fee to the lender. The settlement agreement also notes that CCC and Dennis Christopher will be responsible for the relator’s attorney fees. A few days later, on February, 11, 2022, the DOJ announced another FCA settlement involving PPP fraud. According to this settlement agreement, relator Bryan Quesenberry filed a qui tam action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Zen Solutions, Inc. (“Zen”), a technology company based in Arlington, Virginia, alleging Zen violated Program rules by receiving two PPP loans before December 31, 2020. The PPP required loan applicants to certify they would apply for only one first draw PPP loan before December 31, 2020. According to the settlement agreement, Zen received a first draw loan of $181,055 on April 13, 2020, and then received a second, first draw loan of $192,727 on April 28, 2020. In connection with this second PPP loan, says the settlement agreement, the SBA paid the second lender $9,636.25 in processing fees. The government asserts in the settlement agreement that Zen falsely certified on the second loan that it would not receive a second, first draw loan before December 31, 2020. The terms of the settlement agreement require Zen to pay the United States $31,226.53 in civil damages and penalties under the FCA, of which $9,636.35 constitutes restitution to the SBA for its payment of processing fees to the second lender. Notably, this second settlement is one of several settlements based on PPP-related qui tams filed by relator Quesenberry, such as the Sextant settlement previously reported on Dorsey’s FCA Now blog. As reported elsewhere, the ability to mine public data allows relators to discern whether borrowers have violated Program rules by taking multiple, first-draw loans. To stay updated on these developing topics, check out Dorsey’s FCA Now blog and FCA Case Tracker for the latest FCA and PPP fraud news.

The trend of private parties suing businesses under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq (“FCA”) for violating requirements of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or the “Program”) continues. Just recently, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a press release announcing its latest settlement in an FCA case involving Sextant Marine Consulting, LLC (“Sextant”) and a whistleblower named J. Bryan Quesenberry (“Relator”). According to the settlement agreement (“Agreement”), Sextant is a Miami, Florida-based limited liability company providing duct cleaning services that sought PPP funds during the height of the pandemic. The PPP required borrowers to certify they would receive only one first draw loan before December 31, 2020. However, according to the Agreement, Sextant received two PPP loans in 2020 despite certifying it would receive only one: it received its first loan of $150,000.00 on May 8, 2020 and its second loan of nearly $170,000.00 on May 22, 2020. Learning this, on September 18, 2020, the Relator filed suit under the qui tam provisions of the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b). The government’s ensuing investigation led to the issuance of a civil investigative demand on May 12, 2021, which prompted Sextant to repay the second loan the same day. Ultimately, the parties signed the Agreement on September 29, 2021. Per the Agreement, Sextant will pay the government $30,000, which represents civil penalties and damages under the FCA and includes $8,490.55 in restitution for fees the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) paid to Wells Fargo bank for processing the second loan. The Agreement also stipulates that the Relator will receive 15%, or $4,500.00, of the settlement amount as his portion of the recovery for initiating the lawsuit. Notably, the DOJ’s press release explains that this “matter remains under seal as to allegations against entities other than Sextant.” Thus, more news may be coming soon. Dorsey’s FCA Now blog will continue monitoring for new developments on this and other FCA cases involving alleged PPP fraud, so be sure to check out the FCA Now blog and Dorsey’s FCA Case Tracker to stay current on the latest news involving these issues.

Civil litigation by private parties alleging False Claims Act (“FCA”) violations related to Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) fraud appears to be heating up.  On September 22, 2021, a former restaurant manager filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York alleging he was unlawfully terminated from his employment in retaliation for complaining to his employer that it had unlawfully spent its PPP loan proceeds.  The case, Eric Bieber v. Cayuga Capital Management, LLC, Sea Wolf Services, LLC, Jacob Sacks, & James Wiseman, No. 1:21-cv-05268 (E.D.N.Y.), demonstrates not only the substantive FCA risks facing PPP loan borrowers in obtaining and using a PPP loan, but the related retaliation risks under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provisions in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) when employees raise concerns about a borrower’s eligibility for or use of a PPP loan. According to the publicly available complaint, defendants owned and operated several trendy New York restaurants and a motel that plaintiff helped manage for several years until the summer of 2021 when he was terminated.  Plaintiff alleges that one of the defendants—defendant Sea Wolf Services, LLC (“Sea Wolf”), a company created to employ the staff working at a related “Sea Wolf – Bushwick” restaurant in Brooklyn—obtained a PPP loan between $350,000 and $1 million to help weather the pandemic.  (Although not alleged in the complaint, the publicly available information online shows that Sea Wolf received a “first draw” loan of $411,217 in 2020 and a “second draw” loan of $575,704 in 2021.[1])  Plaintiff further alleges that approximately one month after receiving the PPP loan, the employee roster for Sea Wolf “included eight individuals who did not work at any of the related Sea Wolf restaurants, but had personal connections to [defendants], including business partners and relatives.”  In sum, plaintiff alleges that defendant Sea Wolf unlawfully spent its PPP loan proceeds to pay the defendants’ friends, family and business associates, rather than on legitimate payroll expenses. Plaintiff’s complaint does not, however, assert substantive FCA violations against defendants for filing false claims against the government for allegedly misusing the PPP loan proceeds.  Instead, Plaintiff’s unique complaint alleges a single violation under the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) against defendants for allegedly taking adverse employment action against plaintiff (ultimately terminating his employment) after plaintiff had allegedly engaged in protected activity by complaining about defendant Sea Wolf’s alleged misuse of the PPP loan proceeds.  As part of his requested relief, plaintiff demands damages for front pay, two times the amount of back pay, emotional distress damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  Although the available damages under the FCA for anti-retaliation violations is often less than the potential damages for substantive FCA violations (substantive violations allow for civil penalties for each false claim in addition to damages representing three-times the amount of the government’s loss), anti-retaliation claims nevertheless create significant risk.  This is particularly true when emotional distress damages are sought, which can be quite high depending on the conduct involved and the alleged severity of a plaintiff’s emotional distress.  PPP borrowers therefore must be diligent in complying with all of the rules on eligibility, use, and forgiveness of PPP loans to avoid allegations that they presented false claims to the government related to such loans, and, as this new case shows, diligent in responding to employee complaints that they violated the rules of the PPP. [1] See Tracking PPP, Pro Publica, available at https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus/bailouts/ (last searched September 27, 2021).

A former employee of Great Dane Petroleum Contractors, Inc. a full-service Pollutant Control and General Contractor based in Florida, alleged in a recently-filed lawsuit that the company misused nearly $3 million in Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) funds.  See Rucker v. Great Dane Petroleum Contractors, Inc., No. 21-cv-207 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2021).  As another wave of applications for PPP funds come in, employers must remain vigilant to ensure that PPP funds are used appropriately or risk similar lawsuits. Amber Rucker, who was the personal assistant to Great Dane’s CFO, filed the complaint in United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 10, 2021, under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), Florida's Private Whistleblower Act, and Florida’s Public Whistleblower Act.  Her PPP-specific allegations include misuse by approving employee leaves of absence while “keeping them on the books” and altering payroll records to reflect time not worked by employees.  She also alleged that Great Dane paid bribes to procure contracts, allowed its principals to use the company credit card for personal expenses, misrepresented to its worker’s compensation insurance carrier that is was a drug-free workplace, illegally deducted inflated job costs to evade taxes, and allowed certain employees a grossly inflated per diem. According to Rucker’s lawsuit, she repeatedly complained of the alleged illegal acts to Great Dane’s CFO and the President both verbally and in writing.  She also claimed to object to such practices and refused to process fraudulent charges.  Rucker claims that instead of investigating her allegations, Great Dane placed her on paid administrative leave shortly after her last complaint and terminated her in January 2021. Rucker’s suit relies on the FCA’s anti-retaliation clause, which provides that: Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the employee, contractor, agent or associated others in furtherance of an action under this section or other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of this subchapter. 13 U.S.C. § 3730(h).  According to Rucker’s Complaint, this provision prohibited Great Dane’s decision to place her on paid administrative leave.  Rucker is seeking to be reinstated, restitution for her lost wages, front pay, and compensatory damages. Rucker’s allegations are the latest—and surely not the last—in the increasing number of litigation and enforcement actions that have followed the Federal Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  For example, in December 2020, the Justice Department charged 57 people with trying to steal more than $175 million in PPP funding.  See Katie Benner, Justice Dept. Announces Dozens of Fraud Charges in Small-Business Aid Program, The New York Times (originally published Sept. 10, 2020, updated Dec. 9, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/10/us/politics/ppp-fraud-coronavirus.html. And just a month later, the Department of Justice charged six individuals with fraudulently obtaining approximately $1.5 million in PPP loans on behalf of businesses based in Georgia and South Carolina.  See Justice News (Jan. 28, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/six-charged-connection-3-million-paycheck-protection-program-fraud-scheme.  As the Department of Justice continues to investigate allegations of misuse of PPP loans, companies that accepted PPP funds should ensure that those funds are used for the proper purposes and that any allegations of misuse are investigated without any retaliation.

On January 14, 2021, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued its annual press release highlighting its recoveries from False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement over the last fiscal year.  Total recoveries in FY2020 exceeded $2.2 billion, with the majority—$1.8 billion—of those recoveries coming from the healthcare industry.  These totals are down substantially from FY2019, in which total recoveries exceeded $3 billion with $2.6 billion relating to matters involving the health care industry. As was the case last year, recoveries from qui tam actions—lawsuits brought by whistleblowers or “relators” suing on behalf of the government—continued to fall, with only $1.6 billion in recoveries coming in qui tam actions following $2.2 billion in FY2019.  As we noted last year, this is unsurprising given former Attorney General Barr’s well-documented distaste for the qui tam provisions of the FCA, calling them “patently unconstitutional” in a memo he wrote as an Assistant Attorney General in 1989.  It also highlights the continuing effect of the “Granston Memo” on qui tam enforcement.  The Granston Memo, issued in 2018, instructed DOJ prosecutors to dismiss qui tam cases that lack substantial merit on the grounds that meritless qui tam cases drain limited government resources and may “generate adverse decisions that may affect the government’s ability to enforce the FCA.”  But the most likely factor for the lower recoveries in FY2020 is, of course, COVID-19, which has slowed judicial proceedings around the country and undoubtedly affected the progression of qui tam suits—an issue quickly identified by the DOJ in qualifying its reduced recoveries. The COVID-19 factor that led to a decrease in recoveries in FY2020, however, is likely to be responsible for what is expected to be a substantial increase in FCA recoveries and enforcement in 2021.  First, the government’s response to the pandemic by injecting trillions into the economy has created massive FCA exposure.  The risk of civil enforcement actions to combat fraud relative to the government’s expenditures are just starting to be seen now, with the recent announcement of the first civil FCA settlement based on a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan.  Many more settlements and actions are likely to follow, given the congressional authorization of nearly $1 trillion of PPP funding since March 2020.  The rate of these enforcement actions is likely to increase, too, as the vaccine rollout continues and courts resume normal activities. Moreover, the government will be able to more effectively investigate and resolve FCA matters as the pandemic subsides, including addressing not only the new cases filed in 2021, but also, the still-pending 2020 matters.  Notably, although the total recoveries and total qui tam recoveries for FY2020 were down as compared to FY2019 ($2.2/1.6 billion compared to $3/2.2 billion), the total number of new FCA matters increased.  In FY2019, there were a total of 786 new FCA matters (148 non-qui tam and 638 qui tam).  This number increased by nearly 17% in FY2020, with 922 new FCA matters reported (250 non-qui tam and 672 qui tam).  Thus, as the government is able to better investigate these lingering 2020 matters in FY2021, the recoveries that may have otherwise been realized in FY2020 are now more likely to be realized in FY2021. Second, COVID-related expenditures—and the associated FCA exposure—are only expected to increase after President-Elect Biden proposed a $1.9 trillion relief plan on January 14, 2021.  Although a large percentage of that sum will go to individuals and the vaccine program, hundreds of billions are likely to go to businesses, opening the door for more fraud. Finally, the Biden administration may be more willing to pursue qui tam suits than the Trump administration, leading to an increased number of qui tam actions and a corresponding increase in overall recoveries.  President-Elect Biden stated plans to nominate Merrick Garland as Attorney General, who does not appear to have taken the same strong position against qui tam suits as seen with former Attorney General Barr. In short, while FY2020 was a down year for FCA recoveries, the number of total new FCA matters increased, and the conditions are ripe for a rise in FCA enforcement actions and recoveries throughout 2021.