I'm proud of the firm we've built. Fantastic attorneys, doing excellent work, on important causes.
Why Tycko & Zavareei LLP?
I'm proud of the firm we've built. Fantastic attorneys, doing excellent work, on important causes.
In his 25 years of practice, Jonathan Tycko has represented a wide range of clients, including individuals, Fortune 500 companies, privately-held businesses, and non-profit associations, in both trial and appellate courts around the country. Although he continues to handle a variety of cases, his current practice is focused primarily on helping whistleblowers expose fraud and corruption through qui tam litigation under the False Claims Act and other similar whistleblower statutes. Mr. Tycko’s whistleblower clients have brought to light hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud in cases involving healthcare, government contracts, customs duties and tariffs, banking, and tax.
Mr. Tycko has been recognized by his peers as a leader in the field of whistleblower representation and qui tam litigation. He currently serves as a Co-Chair of the Conference Committee of the Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund, charged with planning the premier annual conference of whistleblower attorneys and their counterparts at the United States Department of Justice and other government agencies. He also currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Qui Tam Litigation Group of the American Association for Justice, the largest plaintiff-side attorney organization in the country. Additionally in 2020, he received the National Law Review’s “Go-To Thought Leader” award in the area of False Claims Act law.
Prior to founding Tycko & Zavareei LLP in 2002, Mr. Tycko was with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, one of the nation’s top law firms. He received his law degree in 1992 from Columbia University Law School, and earned a B.A. degree, with honors, in 1989 from The Johns Hopkins University. After graduating from law school, Mr. Tycko served for two years as a law clerk to Judge Alexander Harvey, II, of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
In addition to his private practice, Mr. Tycko is an active participant in other law-related and community activities. He has taught as an Adjunct Professor at the George Washington University Law School. He is a former member and Chairperson of the Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee of the District of Columbia Bar, where he helped draft the ethics rules governing members of the bar. Mr. Tycko was also a long-time member of the Board of Trustees of Studio Theatre, one of the D.C. area’s top non-profit theaters.
Represented whistleblower Sarah Feinberg in a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against Booz Allen Hamilton that resulted in a settlement of approximately $377 million. The case alleged that while working at Booz, Ms. Feinberg discovered that Booz was charging the federal government for expenses that Booz incurred in its non-government work. It further alleged that Booz leadership, seeking to make up for losses in the company’s commercial and international operations, mixed commercial and international work into Cost Centers intended solely for federal contracting work. Ms. Feinberg repeatedly warned her colleagues that this practice was illegal and unethical and pushed for change. As alleged in the case, when Booz leadership, including its Chief Financial Officer, refused to stop the fraud, she resigned and filed a qui tam lawsuit. This case received significant press coverage including articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Politico.
Represented a whistleblower who brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against Eos Energy Storage, LLC (Eos Energy), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. The lawsuit alleged that the battery manufacturer violated U.S. customs laws by falsifying the value of “dry batteries” produced in China that the company imported into the United States, underpaying duties owed on the imported batteries. The government settled the case with Eos Energy for $1,107,761, and the whistleblower was awarded a 20% share.
Represented a whistleblower who brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against Advanced Biohealing, Inc. (“ABH”), alleging that ABH utilized illegal kickback schemes to sell its product, Dermagraft, to hospitals operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. That lawsuit resulted in a number of criminal convictions, as well as a settlement pursuant to which pharmaceutical company Shire, which had purchased ABH, agreed to pay $350 million to federal and state governments—one of the largest settlements ever in a kickbacks case.
Represented whistleblower in False Claims Act qui tam case against Victaulic Company (“Victaulic”), which alleged that Victaulic had imported pipe fittings without proper country-of-origin markings, and without paying “marking duties” owed as a result. The case resulted in a historic ruling from the United States Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, which held for the first time that country-of-origin marking violations could be pursued in qui tam cases under the False Claims Act, and which firmly established, more generally, that an importer’s failure to pay customs duties is a violation of the False Claims Act’s “reverse false claims” provision. The lawsuit subsequently settled on confidential terms.
Represented a whistleblower in a case against a major toxicology laboratory owned by Sterling Healthcare d/b/a Cordant Health Solutions. The whistleblower alleged that the testing laboratory paid kickbacks to at least two major clients of the laboratory to induce those clients to refer tests to the laboratory. The case, which was filed in federal court in the Western District of Washington, settled for almost $12 million.
Represented two whistleblowers who brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against defendants Orbit Medical Inc. and Rehab Medical Inc. alleging that Orbit sales representatives, under the direction of one of Orbit’s top executives, Jake Kilgore, forged medical records so that Orbit could obtain payment from Medicare for electric wheelchairs. This qui tam lawsuit resulted in a settlement worth more than $7.5 million, and also a number of criminal convictions.
Represented a whistleblower who brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against defendants Arbon Equipment Corporation (Arbon) and Rite-Hite Holding Corporation (Rite-Hite). The lawsuit alleged that Arbon and Rite-Hite violated “prevailing wage laws,” which include the federal Davis-Bacon Act and Service Contract Act, and certain provisions of the California Labor Code. These prevailing wage laws require contractors and subcontractors working on certain types of government-funded projects to pay employees working on those projects specified hourly wages that are higher than minimum wage, and often higher than the employees would be paid for doing similar work on private projects. The action brought by a former Arbon employee alleged that Arbon and its parent company, Rite-Hite, failed to pay prevailing wages to employees who installed and serviced loading dock equipment at facilities owned by the federal or California state governments. Pursuant to the terms of a settlement, the Defendants paid a total of $4,000,000 and agreed to change their compensation practices and policies to assure compliance with federal and California prevailing wage laws.
Successfully represented a whistleblower who brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against Cablexpress Corp. d/b/a/ “CXtec.” This lawsuit alleges that the company violated the Trade Agreements Act by knowingly selling products to U.S. government agencies that were manufactured in China and other non-approved countries. The lawsuit resulted in substantial payments by CXtec to the United States government; the exact terms of the settlement are confidential.
On behalf of class of home loan borrowers, Circuit Court upheld settlement with Nationstar Mortgage, and rejected arguments made by lone objector, relating to Nationstar’s violations of the CFPB rules governing borrower requests for loan modifications and other forms of loss mitigation.
On behalf of whistleblower client, obtained ruling denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss, and holding that qui tam claims relating to small business set-aside contract, governed by Small Business Administration (SBA) rules, could proceed.
On behalf of whistleblower client, obtained ruling denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to exclude experts in False Claims Act qui tam case alleging fraud by a large radiation oncology practice group.
On behalf of whistleblower client, obtained an appellate ruling that violations of country-of-origin marking requirements by an importer can also constitute violations of the False Claims Act; first decision to ever so hold.
Obtained ruling that client, a whistleblower in a False Claims Act case, was entitled to a significant share of a $350 million settlement under the False Claims Act’s “first-to-file” rule.
On behalf of the whistleblower client, obtained ruling that the whistleblower who had brought the qui tam case was entitled to a share of the settlement entered into by the government with the brother of the defendant named in the qui tam case.
Obtained class certification in a case alleging that a mortgage servicing company routinely violated “Regulation X,” which governs home loan medication requests; the first case to ever certify such a class.
Obtained victory in Supreme Court of Washington on behalf of customers who were charged early termination fees; case subsequently settled for millions of dollars in refunds to customers.
Victory in District of Columbia Court of Appeals on behalf of tenants’ association who challenged the sale of their building under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act.
Victory in District of Columbia Court of Appeals on behalf of tenants and tenants’ association challenging sale of their building and retaliatory actions of landlord.
Mr. Tycko litigated on behalf of the owners of a condominium unit at the Ritz-Carlton Condominium in Washington, D.C., and obtained a ruling from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that provisions of condominium sales documents did not constitute arbitration agreement, and that owners could therefore pursue their construction defect claims in court.
We look forward to hearing from you.