Search Site

Supreme Court to Take Up Kellogg Brown & Root Whistleblower Case

It’s impossible to understate the importance of strict adherence to procedure when initiating a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. Unfortunately under our legal system, otherwise meritorious claims can often be defeated merely because the proponent waited too long to act or otherwise failed to follow the rules. One such case recently reached the steps of the United States Supreme Court, which must now consider under what circumstances the deadline for filing qui tam claims can be extended.

The False Claims Act provides a six-year window in which a relator — one who brings a qui tam suit — must act in order to receive the benefits provided under the Act. In United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton, the district court dismissed a qui tam claim filed by Carter on the basis that it had been filed after the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations.

Carter’s complaint involved allegedly fraudulent billing by Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root in 2005, and the case took a long time to compile. After a complicated procedural history that included numerous complaints, dismissals, amended complaints and appeals, Carter filed his final complaint in 2011, more than six years after the event. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding, among other things, that it was filed beyond the statute of limitations.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the ruling based on the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA), citing the following:

  • The running of statutes of limitations relating to frauds against the United States is suspended during a period when the United States is at war.
  • The suspension is not lifted until the President or Congress has formally proclaimed a termination of hostilities.
  • Following termination of hostilities, the suspension continues for three years.

Not surprisingly, the defendants have appealed this case to the Supreme Court to rule on whether the United States was “at war” within the meaning of the WSLA, which would give Carter standing to file his claim. On July 1, 2014 the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Should the Court affirm, it could significantly broaden the ability of whistleblower attorneys in Texas and throughout the country to help relators bring qui tam claims against defense contractors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Awards & Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
As Seen In
In his new book, "Standing Up to China: How a Whistleblower Risked Everything for His Country," former client & Author, Ashley Yablon, quotes Attorney Steve Kardell about Whistelblower Law.
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Incredible knowledge of employee related concerns and equally brilliant knowledge of health care regulations, standards of practice. I would recommend this firm to anyone."  -V.B.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.