United States v. BNP Paribas SA, 884 F. Supp. 2d 589

United States sues BNPP entities and Cruz under FCA and for unjust enrichment and payment by mistake over a 1998–2006 SCGP scheme.
SCGP guarantees were used to finance exporters; eligibility barred ownership/control by foreign importers; Villarreal controlled involved entities.
BNPP allegedly, through Cruz, entered Master Purchase and Sale Agreements with exporters and provided lines of credit in exchange for importer obligations and SCGP guarantees.
Exporters/Importers used false documents to obtain CCC guarantees; BNPP allegedly submitted claims on guarantees after guarantees were obtained.
Defaults by Mexican importers in 2005 triggered BNPP claims; USDA/CCC referred the matter to USAO; Cruz later pled guilty in a related case.
Complaint asserts BNPP knew importers were ineligible for SCGP and Cruz acted within BNPP’s scope and for its benefit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the United States is judicially estopped	U.S. claims not inconsistent with criminal positions.	Government previously labeled BNPP as victim; estoppel applies.	Not judicially estopped
Whether FCA and related claims are time-barred	WSLA and 3-year tolling apply; some claims fall within six-year period.	Claims were submitted by 2005; time-barred under FCA six-year limit and tolling/WSLA do not save.	Questions of fact exist; not dismissal on pleadings; WSLA amendments apply
Application of WSLA to civil FCA claims	WSLA applies to FCA civil claims via amendments; tolling extended.	WSLA applies only to criminal offenses; not to civil FCA claims.	WSLA applies to FCA claims in this action
Whether the United States’ common law claims are time-barred	§ 2416(c) excludes periods when facts not known; tolling/extension apply.	Accrual from 2005; time-barred irrespective of tolling.	Question of fact; not time-barred on pleadings
Sufficiency of FCA claims under Rule 9(b) and vicarious liability	Alleges knowing submission of false claims; liability can extend to BNPP entities via agency/authority.	Fails to plead who did what; lacks vicarious liability basis for all three BNPP entities; no specific misrepresentations by BNPP defendants.	FCA claims insufficiently pled under Rule 9(b); dismissed to extent of lack of particularity; need amended complaint

Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (U.S. 2005) (statute of limitations begins at breach of FCA claim; time-bar guidance)
Smith v. United States, 287 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1961) (time computation for FCA limitations runs from violation, not payment)
Grubbs v. Kanneganti, 565 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading in FCA fraud cases with bite)
Ridglea State Bank, 357 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1966) (agency liability and imputation of officer’s intent to banks under FCA)
Longhi v. Lithium Power Technologies, Inc., 575 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2009) (fraudulent inducement theory under FCA permits liability where contract obtained by fraud)
United States v. Hemmingson, 157 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 1998) (government may pursue FCA liability for knowing submission of false claims)
Kanneganti (United States ex rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti), 565 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) pleading standard in FCA cases)
Dugan & McNamara, Inc. v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 801 (Ct. Cl. 1955) (WSLA history and civil application post-1944 amendments)
Kolsky v. United States, 137 F. Supp. 359 (E.D. Pa. 1955) (WSLA applies to civil fraud actions post-amendments)
Prosperi v. United States, 573 F. Supp. 2d 436 (D. Mass. 2008) (pre-amendment/war-status analysis for WSLA in Iraq/Afghanistan context)
Pfluger, 685 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2012) (war status under WSLA extended; wars not formally terminated as of 2004)