Firm Prevails in D.C. Circuit False Claims Act Appeal
Today, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal in United States ex rel. O’Connor v. U.S. Cellular Corp., No. 23-7041, see Slip Opinion, holding that the clients’ qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act can proceed despite the defendants’ public-disclosure defense. The court found that the relators materially added to publicly available information by uncovering evidence that defendant Advantage Spectrum—which obtained $113 million in FCC bidding credits as a supposed small business—never functioned as an independent company and appears to have been a shell controlled by defendant U.S. Cellular—a multi-billion dollar corporation that could not qualify for the discounts itself.
The opinion, authored by Judge Gregory Katsas, emphasized the significance of the relators’ investigation, which revealed that in six years since receiving its discounted spectrum licenses, Advantage has never had a legitimate place of business, employed anyone, maintained a working phone number or website, or conducted any actual business operations. As the court noted, Advantage’s addresses consisted of “an unoccupied interior room in a condo complex, a storefront in a strip mall, and a home address in a retirement community,” while its supposed manager operates from a Florida retirement home. The court found these revelations—uncovered by the relators’ independent efforts and never disclosed to the FCC—materially strengthened the fraud allegations and justified allowing the relators to proceed with the case as “original sources” of the fraud claims.
This victory comes as the Firm also pursues Supreme Court review in a related case against “King Street” (a different sham company that predated Advantage), where similar allegations brought by the same relators were dismissed. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court requested a response to the Firm’s cert. petition seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in that case. See United States of America ex rel. O’Connor v. USSC Wireless Investment Inc., No. 25-271 (U.S.).
