Whistle-blower Case That Started in Tampa Results in $422.5 Million Settlement

Whistle-blower Case That Started in Tampa Results in $422.5 Million Settlement
St Petersburg Times
October 1, 2010

Over 100 publications reported on Nolan Auerbach’s $422.5 million settlement with Novartis. One of the publications, St. Petersburg Times,highlighted the fact that the initial complaint was filed in Florida. Nolan Auerbach partner Kenneth Nolan explained that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tampa has a “good reputation” for pursuing cases of healthcare fraud. Explaining his initial interest in the case, Nolan stated, “We knew that the percentage of off-label sales was robust and the damages would be high.”

OUR PROMISE Being a healthcare whistleblower can feel like David taking on Goliath. We help level the playing field.

Our law practice is dedicated exclusively to representing healthcare whistleblowers who are willing to take a stand against unscrupulous corporations that are ripping off our government. Whether the fraud involves __________, we pride ourselves on unparalleled level of service, support and legal assistance for our clients.
Contact Us

Contact Us

The more detailed the response, the more likely it is that we will be able to evaluate and determine if your potential False Claims Act case falls within our case requirements. If it does, WE WILL RESPOND TO YOU WITHIN 24 HOURS. (Names of potential defendants are not necessary at this point, should you feel more comfortable omitting them.) By law, all communications to us are 100% confidential.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
No. of Employees at the Company?


Please read the following statement and then click “Send Form”:

Any response to your e-mail will be solely to communicate about our possible representation of you under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. All e-mails submitted to us, whether we take your case or not, are 100% confidential. If we do not respond to your e-mail, then you have communicated information which we cannot address because it appears to fall outside of the False Claims Act or our case requirements.