|
Lawsuit # 1 -
July 21, 1998 - "United States Attorney Donald K. Stern and Michael Ahern, inspector in charge, Northeast Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, announced Tuesday that the United States has filed suit against Vantage Travel Service Inc. of Brookline and its chief executive officer, Henry R. Lewis of Newton. In a civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court of Boston, the United States charges that Lewis and Vantage, a for-profit company that conducts fund-raising programs on behalf of nonprofit organizations, have engaged in a several-year scheme to defraud the U.S. Postal Service by improperly using nonprofit mailing privileges." 10/29/03 - Whistle-blower takes adVantage of $1M - "Things changed when CEO Henry Lewis of Boston and CFO Harry Melikian of Shrewsbury entered into secret agreements with nonprofits to earn money from the mailings, the U.S. attorney said. Vantage shipped 78 million pieces of mail using the reduced rate in the 1990s and saved millions of dollars in postage fees." Jennifer Rosinski. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Oct 29, 2003. pg. 010, ISSN/ISBN:07385854, "Whistle-blower takes adVantage of $1M" Lawsuit # 2 -
Vantage alledges that it was harmed when Barton - Cotton sent a redacted copy of a letter from the Postal Inspector stating some troubling news about Vantage. All counts were dismissed when Barton - Cotton's "Motion For Summary Judgment" was granted by the presiding District Judge in Boston, MA. In his Deposition of 11/09/99, under oath, Vantage's Laurence Lyons stated "...I (Lyons)was steaming that we (Vantage) were being investigated, and I gave him (Melikian) the names of five other competitors (Barton - Cotton, Brick Mill Studios, Affinity Concepts, Quadringa, and Famous Artist Concepts) that were doing the same thing" that Vantage was being charged with under the False Claims Act. He made this statement to Vantage's Harry Melikian the day after Vantage was notified that they were being investigated regarding some False Claims Act violations. Vantage's Harry Melikian decided to file a simular qui tam or False Claims Act complaint and lawsuit against their main competitor, Barton - Cotton. (See Lawsuit # 3.)
Lawsuit # 3 -
This existance of the "sealed" Lawsuit # 3 was disclosed by the Lawsuit # 2 District Judge during certain Lawsuit # 2 proceedings. It was then disclosed by a DOJ attorney whose document was placed in the public record. The DOJ had never disclosed Lawsuit # 3 to the Relator in Lawsuit # 1. He happened to find it during his research on Lawsuit # 2 and his suspicions about the DOJ's actions. This raises certain questions.
1. What was the date Vantage was notified they were being investigated for False Claims Act violations. (Question # 1 = _______________ ) 2. How long had Vantage's Laurence Lyon known (or should have known) that the other five competitors were "doing the same thing" without disclosing it in accordance with 31 USC§3729(a)(7)(A), (B) & (C)?" (Question # 2 = _______________ ) 3. How long had Vantage's Harry Melikian known (or should have known) that the other five competitors were "doing the same thing" without disclosing it in accordance with 31 USC§3729(a)(7)(A), (B) & (C)?" (Question # 3 = _______________ ) 4. What was the date on which Melikian made his FCA disclosure to the DOJ FCA investigator? (Question # 4 = _______________ ) 5. What was the date on which Melikian filed his FCA, qui tam lawsuit? (Question # 5 = _______________ ) 6. Is Vantage's Lawsuit # 3's "Original Complaint" a copy or mirror image of Saklad's Lawsuit # 1's "Original Complaint? (Question # 6 = _______________ ) 7. Should Melikian's Lawsuit# 3 be dismissed because he knew (or should have known) about his company's and the other 5 companies' FCA violations but didn't disclose them within 30 days of the date he first learned of the violations? (Question # 7 = _______________ ) 8. The recovery in Lawsuit # 3 is directly related to Lawsuit # 1.
B. DOJ issues a notice of alleged Vantage FCA violations to Vantage, C. Lyon is "steaming" and has several conversations with Melikian, D. Lyon tells Melikian of the "...5 other competitors were doing the same thing", and E. Melikian files Lawsuit # 3 against one of the 5 that is his main competitor. Isn't Lawrence Saklad entitled to an adjusted relator's award based on the knowledge of additional similar violations by other companies discovered by the DOJ as a direct and documented result of Lawsuit # 1. (Question # 8 = _______________ ) 9. If, while Lawsuit # 3 is still under "seal", the DOJ successfully has Lawsuit # 3 dismissed because Melikian was neither (1) the first to file nor (2) is he in compliance with the FCA 30-day disclosure requirement, then will they delivery the recovery to Treasury under the FCA or attempt to cure all by contract adjustments? (Question # 9 = _______________ ) 10. If the DOJ misrepresents or conceals a large part of the "entire" "proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim" from the Court | |||||||||||
