IBJNews

Rolls-Royce must face whistle-blowers’ lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rolls-Royce Corp. lost a bid Monday for dismissal of a whistle-blower lawsuit pressed by two former quality-control officers claiming the company cheated the United States by failing to report defense-contract product defects.

U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence in Indianapolis ruled plaintiffs Thomas McArtor and Keith Ramsey could proceed on two of their four theories of liability.

McArtor and Ramsey claim Rolls-Royce induced the U.S. to enter into about 180 aircraft engine contracts from 2003 to 2006 by hiding its failure to comply with a required quality-assurance plan, failing to disclose defects and concealing those practices to maintain a third-party certification needed to keep existing contracts and obtain new ones.

“As a result of RRC’s concealment efforts,” Lawrence said, citing the McArtor-Ramsey allegations, “the recertification auditor did not discover most of the violations.”

The suit was filed in 2008 and unsealed after the U.S. declined to intervene in 2010.

Lawrence rejected the plaintiffs’ theory that the company could be liable for reverse false claims for allegedly failing to tell the U.S. of defects to avoid having to pay refunds or issue replacement parts. The men hadn’t shown such claims were anything more than conjectural, he said.

“RRC is required to pay the government or otherwise make concessions if and only if the government so chooses,” the judge said.

Joel Reuter, a spokesman for the Indianapolis-based unit of Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc, said he couldn’t immediately comment on the court’s decision. Rolls-Royce has more than 2,000 employees in Indianapolis. The parent company is based in London.

“Thousand of engines in military aircraft are potentially affected,” according to a revised complaint filed in November 2011, including the F-35 joint-strike fighter plane, C-130 Hercules transports and the V-22 Osprey, a plane capable of vertical lift-off.

The men, who are suing on behalf of the U.S., seek an $11,000 penalty for each false claim and each false statement the company made to the Defense Department, plus three times the amount of payments received or costs avoided. McArtor and Ramsey are seeking 30 percent of any such recovery for themselves.

McArtor, who filed the initial complaint, worked for the company from 1994 to 2006, serving as a senior quality assurance manager and airworthiness coordinator when he was allegedly forced out for reporting fraudulent conduct.

Ramsey, who joined the case after it was unsealed, served as a quality engineer from August 2002 to March 2006 when, he said, he was fired for refusing to cooperate with quality-control plan deviations.

The men said in an amended complaint filed in November that they didn’t know each other before to the litigation.

“Rolls-Royce is finally out of options for avoiding these serious, safety-related allegations,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Kanovitz of Chicago-based Loevy & Loevy said in a press statement issued after Lawrence released his ruling.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Thank you to the scientists who care enough to find a cure. We are so lucky that their intelligence has brought them to these understandings because it is through these understandings that we have new hope. Certainly the medicine will be expensive, these drugs usually are, especially the ones that are not mass produced. If I know anything from the walks that my town has put on for FA it is this: people care and people want to help. Donations and financial support can and will come to those who need it. All we need is a cure, the money will come. I mean, look at what these scientists have done thanks to the generosity of donors. 30 million dollars brings us here where we can talk about a drug's existence! There is so much to be frustrated about in this world, but this scientific break is not one of them. I am so happy for this new found hope. Thank you so much to the scientists who have been slaving away to help my friends with FA. We wish you speedy success in the time to come!

  2. I love tiny neighborhood bars-- when I travel city to city for work, it's my preference to find them. However, too many still having smoking inside. So I'm limited to bars in the cities that have smoking bans. I travel to Kokomo often, and I can promise, I'll be one of those people who visit the ma and pa bars once they're smoke free!

  3. I believe the issue with keystone & 96th was due to running out of funds though there were other factors. I just hope that a similar situation does not befall ST RD 37 where only half of the overhaul gets built.

  4. It's so great to see a country founded on freedom uphold the freedom for all people to work and patronize a public venue without risking their health! People do not go to bars to smoke, they can take it outside.

  5. So, Hurko, mass transit has not proven itself in Indy so we should build incredibly expensive train lines? How would that fix the lack of demand? And as far as those double decker buses to bus people in from suburbs, we can't fill up a regular sized buses now and have had to cancel lines and greatly subsidize others. No need for double decker buses there.

ADVERTISEMENT