If the case goes all the way to settlement or trial, and the government has found the accused guilty, our settlement will be paid when it is concluded that the government is being paid by the violator and it is confident it will be saving dollars based upon the confirmed fraud. Typically, money goes to the "relator" at the time when the government is receiving their money (fees, fines and savings). The "relator" is the individual reporting the violation, bringing the government substantiative evidence it would not otherwise have known about that validates the criminal activity has been occuring. Assuming you choose to work with OffRecord, OffRecord will be the relator (aiming to keep you out of the spotlight) and we will divide the reward awarded by the judge between the two of us equally.
The government is particularly pleased when they can find that it is an outside agency, such as a commercial hospital or support facility that may owe them money. Rewards to the relator are typically 15 to 30% of the total amounts recovered by the government, inclusive of money saved, fines, interest and other fees. And the money saved is not calculated based simply on the one year following the event, but the judge can consider a number of years into the future in that savings calculation. There are certain circumstances where a judge has the abilty to exercise his or her discrimination and could determine that the reporting individual receive a 10% reward versus higher - for example, should the individual reporting the fraud be deeemed as a significant participant in the fraud - a reward may still occur, but it may be decreased to the 10% level; however, most cases should earn between over 15% for qui tam situations. Cases in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) assumes the lead on the case the relator must be awarded between 15% and 25%...and for cases that the DOJ does not take the lead on and outside representatives must be brought on board, relators are awarded between 25% to 30% of the money saved by the government. The judge is typically required to determine an amount to pay the representing lawyers over and above whatever they pay in awards to the relator. In other words, if a judge determines that 30% is to be paid to the relator, he must then determine a separate amount over and above the 30% to be paid by the guilty party to the representing lawyers for their services as well.
DOJ's Description of Rewards
Here is an overview from the Department of Justice's Primer on False Claim Act submissions and rewards to "Relators" who report violations: "If the government intervenes in the qui tam action, the relator is entitled to receive between 15 and 25 percent of the amount recovered by the government through the qui tam action. If the government declines to intervene in the action, the relator’s share is increased to 25 to 30 percent. Under certain circumstances, the relator’s share may be reduced to no more than ten percent. If the relator planned and initiated the fraud, the court may reduce the award without limitation. The relator’s share is paid to the relator by the government out of the payment received by the government from the defendant. If a qui tam action is successful, the relator also is entitled to legal fees and other expenses of the action by the defendant. All of these provisions are in § 3730(d) of the FCA. The FCA also provides that if the government chooses to obtain a recovery from the defendant in certain types of proceedings other than the relator’s FCA suit, this is known as an alternate remedy and the relator is entitled to the same share of the recovery as if the recovery was obtained through the relator’s FCA suit. §3730(c)(5). More on this can be found in the DOJ Primer: http://www.justice.gov/civil/docs_forms/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf
Example of a Reward Scenario
Lets say that a pharma company has been found guilty of over-charging for medicare reimbursement over the last few years which has totalled over $10M, $4M in the last year alone. Lets say someone brings the case to OffRecord, we take it through the process, and courts have required that the pharma company pay a fine of $2M. Lets also say the judge estimates that the exposement of the violation will save the US government $9M. So with fees, interest, money saved and the fine, they judge estimates this case totals $12M. The judge then has the responsibility of determing how effective the evidence has been in bringing this criminal activity to light, and how much he or she believes is appropriate to reward the reporting individual. At a range of 15 to 30%, the judge can award the "relator" from $1.8M to $3.6M. This amount would be divided evenly between yourself and OffRecord.
Real World Example
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was forced to pay over $81 million in 2010 in penalties in accordance with a False Claims Act lawsuit that was brought before courts. Two sales representatives with J&J's subsidiary Ortho-McNeil-Janssen risked their careers by coming forward with evidence which proved that the company was improperly marketing, promoting and selling the anti-convulsant drug Topamax. J&J had been marketing the product for a variety of purposes beyond those approved by the Food and Drug Adminstration. This "off-label" marketing, combined with the company prescribing the medicine for purposes not supported by the state medicaid program, cost J&J millions in business and shareholder value, extending far beyond the $81M in penalties. The two whistleblowers who brought the case to light were awarded payments totaling more than $9 million from the federal share of the civil recovery. This is just one of countless examples of how whistleblowers are rewarded for assisting the government in protecting American resources and the safety of its people. If the two individuals had brought this case through OffRecord, they would be dividing the reward amount with OffRecord. The benefit to the individual working with OffRecord is that it steps them back personally from the limelight and provides them the privacy, personal support and career protection they and their family may need to see this through in a way that helps secure themselves, their pensions and their loved ones in the process.
Sometimes these trials and experiences take years to get through to completion, many of which do not go the way the relator believes they should. Employees who decide to take these cases to court themselves directly are often subjected to retaliation, even though the law is there to protect them. While some of that retaliation could come through bosses, other pressures can come in the form of negative comments, spiteful work relationships and jealous behaviors from those in the work place and home life as well. Individuals will need to make their own decisions about whether they want to try and lead these initiatives themselves, or choose to leverage OffRecord as a partner to help correct these wrongs.