submissions, 53 of which pertained to 2004 and 2005 and failed to list any Phase Tech workers. The 62 certifications also were false because they wrongly certified that the prevailing wages were paid. Based upon this evidence, the district court did not err in finding that Circle C’s original and 2008 payroll certifications at issue were expressly false because (1) they stated that they were complete, when in fact no Phase Tech employees who worked on the project were listed, and (2) the certifications wrongly represented that the prevailing wages were paid to its subcontracted employees. Wall, 700 F.Supp.2d at 939. See United States ex rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 601 F.3d 94, 116 (2d Cir.2010), rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1885, 179 L.Ed.2d 825 (2011) (<HOLDING>). As plaintiffs argue, Circle C’s reliance upon
holding relator stated fca claim where defendants submitted annual cost reports that included a certification of compliance holding that the relator stated an fca claim where the contractor filed false  reports necessarily knowing that they were false because it in fact had no mechanism in place to identify covered individuals it did so in order to procure contracts and obtain payment under existing contracts as it could do neither without filing the reports holding that the chief financial officer of a hospital had sufficient access to the allegedly false cost reports resulting from the false invoices to require him to plead at least one example of a false claim with particularity holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 usc  286  a companion statute to the criminal fca  because his claims were false when submitted even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor