Fitzhugh v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.:
In 2004, the firm filed the first of three law suits against Countrywide Home Loans and fourteen other defendants, including developers, on behalf of more than thirty low income, minority home buyers of condominiums at King's Crossing II in southeast DC. In February 2011, after more than six years of litigation, the case was settled under confidential terms. Evidence introduced during motion practice in support of the Plaintiffs' cases included: signatures of Countrywide underwriter who supposedly approved loans for FHA insurance was forged; a director of the Washington, DC office of ACORN signed blank downpayment forms at the request of a developer's employee that then appeared in Countrywide's loan files; loans sold to investors, including FannieMae, and insured by public and private insurers, including FHA, had equity and loan-to-value ratios calculated based upon non-existent ACORN gift funds; the roofs of the condominiums were in dangerous and substandard condition; and flooding occurred in the buildings with mold and mushrooms growing inside. (See 2011 Press Release.)
According to Andrew Grosso, "Notwithstanding considerations of financial recovery or the length of the case, given the condition of the condominiums and the financial constraints of the Plaintiffs, this may well be the most important case pursued by this firm."
(2011 STATUS: Settled)
Armentrout v. NeuStar; Sullivan v. NeuStar:
In 2004, the firm filed suit on behalf of Douglas B. Armentrout against two Internet companies: NeuStar, Inc. the domain name registry for ".us;" and NeuLevel, Inc., the domain name registry for ".biz." Mr. Armentrout is a former vice president of NeuStar and CEO of NeuLevel. In 2005, the firm filed a second suit against NeuStar on behalf of Alan Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan is the former Director of the .BIZ Registry for NeuLevel. Taken together, the complaints charged the defendants with manipulating the companies' accounting records to defraud one of NeuStar's initial partners in the ownership of NeuLevel, this being Melbourne IT of Melbourne, Australia; and manipulating the termination of employees to deprive them of stock options to which they were entitled. Mr. Armentrout's complaint also alleged that the companies defrauded him of more than $3 million.
The cases were separately settled in 2006. The parties agreed to comment as follows: "The matters between the parties have been settled on a confidential basis to the satisfaction of all concerned." In addition, with regard to the case of Armentrout v. NeuStar and NeuLevel, "The parties are very satisfied with the settlement."
(status: settled)
United States ex rel. Campbell v. Lockheed Martin Corporation:
Brought on behalf of Albert D. Campbell, the former Cost Control Chief for Lockheed Martin on the company's LANTIRN or "smart bomb" program, under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act. The lawsuit charged Lockheed Martin with defrauding the United States government in nine military contracts valued at $4.5 billion, including violations of the Truth in Negotiation Act and the Foreign Military Sales program of the U.S. Department of Defense. Filed in May 1995 in federal district court in the Middle District of Florida, the firm litigated the case without government support for over a year before the United States joined part of the case in October 2001. The case settled in August 2003 for $38 million plus more than $2 million in attorneys fees and costs.
(status: settled)
United States ex rel. Kessler v. American Postal Workers Union:
Brought on behalf of Andrea Kessler under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act, the lawsuit charged the American Postal Workers Union with submitting false claims to the Office of Personnel Management in the operation of the Federal Employees Health benefits Program. Filed in September 1997, in federal district court in the District of Maryland, the United States effected a settlement of the case while it was still under seal. The case settled in January 2002 for $2 million.
(status: settled)
Seldowitz v. Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of State:
Brought on behalf of Stuart M. Seldowitz under the federal Privacy Act, the suit charged that the OIG of the U.S. Department of State used false documents in an effort to coerce Mr. Seldowitz into entering a civil settlement of allegations that he submitted false claims to the Department of State in his capacity as a Foreign Service Officer. Filed in April 1998, the case was tried without a jury in May 2002. Although the verdict was in favor of the OIG on technical legal grounds, the Court found that Mr. Seldowitzís charges were substantially correct, and issued a written legal opinion exonerating Mr. Seldowitz of the wrongdoing initially alleged by the OIG.
(status: closed)