United States Ex Rel. Oliver v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
412 U.S. App. D.C. 162
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Anthony Oliver filed a 2008 qui tam action against Philip Morris USA under the False Claims Act for allegedly failing to provide MFN pricing to government exchanges while certifying compliance.
- Exchanges NEXCOM and AAFES contracts require MFN pricing and certifications that Philip Morris's prices are at least as favorable as those offered to others.
- The district court dismissed, holding lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the public disclosure bar, based on an Iceland Memo allegedly disclosing the transactions.
- The Iceland Memo described duty-free pricing and indicated Philip Morris’s price structure but did not state MFN provisions or fraud.
- The court concluded MFN provisions were publicly disclosed and also inferred compliance from continued Exchanges purchases, leading to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that MFN provisions and the certifications were not publicly disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the public disclosure bar apply to MFN provisions and certifications? | Oliver contends Y was not publicly disclosed. | Philip Morris argues MFN provisions and related certifications were publicly disclosed through the Iceland Memo and government knowledge. | No; MFN provisions and certifications were not publicly disclosed. |
| Did the Iceland Memo publicly disclose the MFN requirements? | Memo does not communicate MFN impermissibility. | Memo shows pricing complaints that imply public disclosure of MFN issues. | Iceland Memo did not publicly disclose MFN requirements. |
| Whether new internet-publication evidence on MFN clauses can be considered on appeal. | New evidence should be considered to determine public availability. | Evidence was not timely presented; appellate court should not evaluate it. | New evidence not considered on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. United States ex rel. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (public disclosure framework for FCA)
- Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (2010) (statutory public disclosure bar scope and purpose)
- Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 507 F.3d 720 (1st Cir. 2007) (government knowledge alone not public disclosure)
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885 (2011) (FOIA responses as public disclosures framework)
- Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2009) (government disclosure analysis contexts)