United States ex rel. Shea v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 78

Relator Stephen Shea filed a False Claims Act complaint on Jan 17, 2007 alleging MCI/Verizon overcharged the United States on FTS 2001 and FTS 2001-Bridge contracts.
The United States intervened and settled in Feb 2011 for $93.5 million (including interest); SUFS refunds added $3 million recovered in 2008.
Relator received an advance of $13,725,000 (about 15% of the first $91.5 million) pending final fees disposition.
Relator moved on Jul 27, 2011 for an additional share, seeking about $7.48 million more (total about $21 million).
The Court awarded 20% of the $93.5 million recovery to Shea and 15% of the $3 million SUSF recovery, denying recovery of the GSA Management Services fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What percentage share is appropriate for the Relator?	Shea substantially contributed; deserves 20% of main recovery.	Government contends contribution was less direct; percentage should be lower.	Relator awarded 20% of the $93.5 million recovery.
Is Relator entitled to 15% of the $3 million SUSF recovery?	Relator contributed; should receive substantial portion of SUSF refund.	Relator contributed minimally to SUSF recovery; 15% baseline appropriate.	Relator awarded 15% of the $3 million SUSF recovery.
May Relator recover the GMS fee portion of $1,322,248?	GMS overlap with relator’s claims warranted share.	GMS fee not implicated by the complaint; no overlap.	Relator denied any share of the GMS fee.

United States ex rel. Quorum Health Group, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D. Fla. 2001) (factors guiding relator’s share analysis; framework relied upon by court)
U.S. ex rel. Johnson-Pochardt v. Rapid City Regional Hosp., 252 F. Supp. 2d 892 (D. S. D. 2003) (Senate factors and analysis of relator’s contribution and government knowledge)
U.S. ex rel. Pedicone v. Mazak Corp., 807 F. Supp. 1350 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (permissible to award substantial relay even when case settles before trial)