Cochise Consultancy: Filing Deadlines When the Government Declines

The Supreme Court’s Cochise Consultancy decision on False Claims Act limitations arose from alleged false claims for security services in Iraq. The Court held that the filing period tied to a responsible government official’s knowledge can apply even when the government declines to join a qui tam case. The whistleblower’s own knowledge does not start that period.

For an insider who knows about older false claims, what federal officials learned and when they learned it can matter alongside the dates of the conduct itself. Cochise’s argument would have taken that alternative away when the government left the whistleblower to pursue the case.

The Iraq Security Contract Behind the Dispute

Cochise Consultancy was a defense contractor accused of submitting false claims for payment under a subcontract to provide security services in Iraq. As the Supreme Court’s opinion recounts, the whistleblower’s complaint concerned claims from before January 2006 until early 2007.

The whistleblower said he disclosed the alleged scheme during an interview with federal agents on November 30, 2010. He filed his complaint on November 27, 2013. The government declined to take over, and Cochise argued that he had filed too late.

The whistleblower accepted that the six-year period had elapsed. He argued that his filing fell within three years of the interview and within ten years of the alleged violations. The dispute therefore put the government’s knowledge at the center of a case the government had chosen not to lead.

What Did Cochise Decide?

The Supreme Court unanimously decided on May 13, 2019 that the filing period tied to a responsible government official’s knowledge applies even when the government declines to join. It also rejected Cochise’s fallback argument that the private whistleblower should count as that official. The ruling let the case go forward.

Cochise wanted the same kind of case to qualify for one filing period but not the other, depending on whether the government joined. The Court’s answer was straightforward: the law covers both cases brought by the government and cases brought by private whistleblowers. Government participation does not change what kind of case it is.

We see the absurdity in treating the same alleged false claims as a different kind of case just because someone else is pursuing the government’s money. The government remains the party harmed by the alleged fraud and receives most of any recovery. Its interest does not disappear when it leaves the whistleblower to lead.

Same alleged claims. Same public money.

How the False Claims Act Limitations Period Works

The False Claims Act limitations period uses the later of two alternatives: six years from the violation, or three years from when the responsible United States official knew or reasonably should have known the material facts. The second alternative has an outer limit of ten years from the violation.

Before Cochise, courts disagreed over whether whistleblowers could use the longer period when the government declined to join. The Supreme Court resolved that disagreement by making the government-knowledge alternative available in those cases.

Cochise also argued that the rule could give a private whistleblower more time than the government would have if officials discovered the fraud immediately. The Court rejected that objection. It saw nothing unusual about allowing a longer period when the responsible official neither knew nor reasonably should have known the relevant facts. The public’s interest in recovering money remained, even when the person bringing the case already knew about the alleged fraud.

The dates in the security-contract dispute show why that mattered. The whistleblower’s argument depended on when he said federal agents learned about the alleged scheme, as well as when the contractors allegedly submitted the false claims. The age of the payment requests alone did not answer his argument.

Whose Knowledge Starts the Three-Year Period?

The responsible United States official’s knowledge starts the three-year period. The private whistleblower’s knowledge does not. The Court rejected the idea that bringing a case in the government’s name turns a private person into a government official.

Its reasoning was concrete. The private whistleblower was neither appointed as a federal officer nor employed by the United States. Nor did the law require him to investigate or pursue a False Claims Act case. Suing on the government’s behalf did not give him a government job.

The Court left the precise identity of the responsible official open. The government argued for the Attorney General or a delegate, but the Court did not settle which official counts in every case. The law also counts what the responsible official reasonably should have known, not only what the official actually knew.

That is why an account of who received the information matters alongside the date. We work with you and whistleblower lawyers who know defense contracting cases to understand the claims, what officials were told and which parts of that history your evidence can establish.

Can I Continue If the Government Declines?

Yes. A whistleblower can continue a False Claims Act case after the government declines. Cochise confirms that the government-knowledge filing period remains available in that setting.

Government intervention determines who takes primary responsibility for pursuing the case. When the government joins, it takes that role. When it declines, the whistleblower may proceed. A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

For someone inside a contractor, the evidence behind the claims and the history of what officials learned serve different purposes. Your account may connect the alleged false payment requests with information that reached the government. That is the connection we examine with you when assessing older claims.

Other Filing Questions Belong in Our Conversation

First-to-file and public disclosure raise separate questions we address with you and the defense contracting whistleblower lawyers we bring in. If either is part of your concern, bring it into our conversation along with the dates.

Your Knowledge of the Claims and the Dates

If you work for a defense or security contractor and know about older false claims or what federal officials were told, speak to one of our Whistleblower Experts about that history. We build your strongest case with you and bring in whistleblower attorneys who know defense contracting fraud. We stay on your side from the first conversation through the case.