In U.S. ex rel. Boise v. Cephalon, Inc. (July 21, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that relators stated a claim under the 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(G)—otherwise known as the “reverse false claims” provision of the False Claims Act (FCA)—based on alleged violations of a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA).
Cephalon’s CIA provided that failure to comply with its obligations “may” lead to monetary penalties, and that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) could demand penalties (which were stipulated at various dollar amounts in the CIA) after determining that penalties were appropriate. The relators alleged that Cephalon promoted medications off-label and paid unlawful kickbacks in violation of the CIA, entitling the OIG to stipulated penalties. They further claimed that by failing to report the violations and making false certifications of compliance, Cephalon improperly avoided its obligation to pay penalties in violation of § 3729(a)(1)(G).
The court denied Cephalon’s motion to dismiss, in which it argued that the penalty obligations in the CIA were contingent, inasmuch as the OIG could choose whether or not to demand payment of penalties. As such, Cephalon argued they could not give rise to reverse false claims because, absent a demand from OIG, there was no “obligation” to avoid within the statute’s meaning. After comparing other district courts’ treatment of this issue, the court concluded that Cephalon’s obligation to pay stipulated penalties was not contingent, and instead existed regardless of OIG’s payment demand. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized that in stipulating penalties, “Cephalon and the government have already negotiated and contracted for the remedies that arise upon a breach of the CIA.”
The result in this case is unsound, as it sets up a potentially endless cycle of FCA liability. Defendants often must enter into CIAs with the OIG in connection with settling FCA claims. CIAs impose onerous and expensive obligations, typically for five years, as part of the price of resolution and avoiding exclusion. Under the reasoning of Cephalon, a CIA serves not just as a compliance mechanism but is itself a potential source of new FCA allegations by enterprising relators. Thus, a defendant may close one FCA door while at the same time opening another.
Moreover, in Cephalon, the alleged off-label promotion and kickbacks that the relators say give rise to the CIA violations are, according to the relators’ complaint, also a basis for “non-reverse” false claims under other provisions under the FCA (e.g., presentment, false records, conspiracy). In these circumstances, expanding the scope of potential FCA liability based on the same underlying conduct through a CIA-based reverse false claims theory is unduly expansive and at the same time unnecessarily duplicative. Indeed, to prevail on whether Cephalon failed to properly report or certify compliance under the CIA, the relator still needs to prevail on whether the off-label promotion or kickbacks occurred in the first place.
Cephalon is by no means the only, or the last, word on this issue. In U.S. ex rel. Booker v. Pfizer, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D. Mass. 2014), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts came to the opposite conclusion in a case involving similar allegations and a similarly worded CIA. The Booker court focused on the discretionary nature of the language in the CIA—i.e., the fact that violations “may” lead to penalties if the OIG demands them—and held that the CIA did not give rise to an obligation under the FCA’s reverse false claims provision. The court concluded that “[t]he discretion retained by the OIG here is thus the discretion whether to impose a penalty and thereby create an obligation to pay, rather than the discretion whether to enforce and existing obligation to pay.”
The result in Booker prevents CIAs from creating a new set of FCA landmines for providers who are seeking to resolve FCA claims. But as Cephalon demonstrates, the issue is far from settled.