Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Business Crimes Hotline
3M Settles False Claims Act Lawsuit over Defective Military Earplugs
On July 26, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a False Claims Act settlement linked to defective ear plugs manufactured by 3M Company (3M), a the multinational manufacturing company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. As noted in the DOJ's press release, without a finding of liability, 3M agreed to pay $9.1 million dollars based on whistleblower allegations that the company knowingly sold the Defense Logistics Agency, the combat logistics support branch of the Department of Defense, defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2). The DOJ indicated that, in distributing this product, 3M — including through its predecessor entity, Aearo Technologies Inc. — failed to reveal that defects lessened its hearing protection effectiveness. Specifically, the ear plugs were too short for a user's ears and, over time, loosened, causing performance issues.
The 3M settlement results from the whistleblower (qui tam) provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit individuals and companies to make claims when there is evidence of fraud against the U.S. government. The whistleblower provisions afford individuals the right to file suit under seal in a United States District Court on behalf of the government and share in approximately 15% – 30% of the profits. In fiscal year 2017, the DOJ recovered over $3.7 billion from False Claims Act settlements and judgments, with $3.4 billion resulting from lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provisions. As a result of these settlements and judgments, the DOJ paid out $392 million to whistleblowers. 3M's competitor and ear plug manufacturer, Moldex-Metric Inc. filed the lawsuit in 2016 and will receive over $1,911,000 million. See, United States ex rel. Moldex-Metric v. 3M Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-1533-MBS (D.S.C.). The settlement was the result of coordination between the DOJ's Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
This premium content is locked for Business Crimes Bulletin subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.