BTW Solutions, LLC, a wholesale pharmaceutical distributor, allegedly colluded with physicians to submit false reimbursement claims to a federal workers' compensation program. The scheme involved billing for prescription pain creams at a 900% markup and splitting the proceeds with the physicians. Elizabeth Peters Young, a former BTW salesperson, discovered the scheme and filed a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act. After a years-long investigation, the federal government intervened in 2023 and settled with BTW for $1.5 million in 2025. Following the settlement, Young moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The district court granted the motion, awarding Young $263,680.08 in fees and costs. BTW appealed, challenging Young's entitlement to fees based on her prior unrelated criminal conviction and arguing the fee amount was unreasonable.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's fee award for abuse of discretion. The court first addressed BTW's argument that Young should be barred from fees under the unclean hands doctrine because she had been convicted of conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks in a different scheme at a different company. The court clarified that the unclean hands doctrine 'proscribes equitable relief when, but only when, an individual's misconduct has immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks.' Since BTW conceded that Young was not convicted for acts at issue in this case, the court held that the doctrine 'has no role to play' and the defense necessarily failed. Next, the court rejected BTW's challenge to the fee amount. Regarding the claim that Young's lawyers spent time on unrelated claims, the court applied the standard from Hensley v. Eckerhart, noting that claims are related if they share a 'common core of facts.' Because the claims against BTW and its codefendants all stemmed from the same kickback scheme, the district court did not abuse its discretion in including those hours. Finally, the court dismissed BTW's claim that the 396 hours spent were excessive as a 'boilerplate objection' unsupported by specific evidence of redundant or unnecessary work, especially given the case's complexity and duration.
The decision reinforces that a relator's unrelated past misconduct does not automatically disqualify them from False Claims Act fee awards. It clarifies that the unclean hands doctrine requires a direct nexus between the misconduct and the specific relief sought. For practitioners, the ruling confirms that in complex, long-running qui tam cases involving multiple defendants and a common factual core, courts are unlikely to reduce fee awards based on generalized objections about time spent on related claims.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download