From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. United Techs. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jul 1, 2013
Case No. 3:99-cv-093 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 1, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:99-cv-093

07-01-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Defendant.


Judge Thomas M. Rose


JUDGMENT

This action was tried by Judge Thomas M. Rose without a jury and the following decision was reached:

It is ordered that plaintiff the United States of America recover from the defendant United Technologies Corporation the amount of $664,364,996 as follows:

+-------------------------------------------------+ ¦Common Law Damages: ¦$108,994,143 ¦ +----------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Prejudgment Interest on Common Law¦$191,320,348 ¦ +----------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦False Claims Act Treble Damages ¦$356,960,505 ¦ +----------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Penalties: ¦$ 7,090,000 ¦ +----------------------------------+--------------¦ ¦Total Amount of Judgment: ¦$664,364,996 ¦ +-------------------------------------------------+

Post judgment interest will accrue beginning on July 2, 2013 at the statutory rate as specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Finally, The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this First Day of July, 2013.

_____________

THOMAS M. ROSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. United Techs. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jul 1, 2013
Case No. 3:99-cv-093 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 1, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. United Techs. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 1, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:99-cv-093 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 1, 2013)