From Our Readers

• Publication year: 1993
• Pages: 506
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 3 Pg. 506

22 Colo.Law. 506 Colorado Lawyer 1993.

1993, March, Pg. 506. From Our Readers

---

506

Vol. 22, No. 3, Pg. 506

From Our Readers

Dear Editor:

Kevin Daley's article on qui tam actions in the February 1993 Colorado Lawyer [at page 229] was a good overview on the subject. However, several errors are noted which warrant the attention of your readers.

Mr. Daley states that there is pending legislation because a former government employee Art Williams obtained a multimillion [dollar] recovery in his suit against NEC. This was in error. On Feb. 21, 1992, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Williams' motion for a percentage of the recovery, and Williams got no monies. This matter is currently on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit (No. 92-2354). The two Bill(s) that Daley notes on proposed legislation were never enacted into law in the 102nd Congress, and thus, as of February 1993, the False Claims Act has not been amended to impose any further jurisdictional bars. Whether any Bill(s) to change the provisions of the Act are reintroduced in the 103rd Congress remains to be seen.

Currently, the qui tam provisions are being challenged as unconstitutional in two cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by the Boeing Corporation and General Dynamics (Appeals Nos. 92-3660 and 92-56042). As of to date, the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions under the 1986 False Claims Act has not been ruled on by a Federal Appellate Court. On Jan. 27, 1993, the Los Angeles Times reported that former Attorney General William Barr has written a 38-page Dept. of Justice memo asserting that the Act is "patently unconstitutional". At the time the Daley article was published, he apparently was not...