Podcast - Cybersecurity Roundup: Analyzing New and Proposed Rules for Contractors
AGG Talks: Women in Tech Law Podcast - Episode 3: Cybersecurity and FCA Compliance: Essential Insights for Tech Leaders
False Claims Act Insights - Are All Healthcare “Kickbacks” Subject to FCA Liability?
False Claims Act Insights - If Everything Matters, Nothing Does: Parsing Materiality in FCA Disputes
False Claims Act Insights - Assessing the Fallout from a Thermonuclear FCA Verdict
False Claims Act Insights - Eureka! Government Investigators Seek Out Research Misconduct
Common Scenarios Triggering False Claims Act Violations, Part 3: Claims and Investigations
Common Scenarios Triggering False Claims Act Violations, Part 1: Gov. Contracts and Cybersecurity
False Claims Act Insights - Physician, Refer Thyself: How Stark Law and FCA Intersect
False Claims Act Insights - The Art and Science of Corporate Compliance in Managing FCA Risk
The Latest on Healthcare Enforcement
False Claims Act Insights - Railroaded! How to Approach the Twin Tracks of Parallel Proceedings
FCA Uncovered: Mitigating Risk in the Regulatory Spotlight — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
False Claims Act Insights - Are We Done Here? The Unique Dynamics of FCA Settlements
False Claims Act Insights - Help! I Got a Civil Investigative Demand from DOJ. What Do I Do?
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 186: White Collar Crimes in Healthcare with Maynard Nexsen’s White Collar Team
False Claims Act Insights - Think You Know Whistleblowers? Think Again.
PilieroMazza Annual Review What DOJ’s Annual FCA Report Means for Government Contractors
Protecting Our Nation’s Data: Cybersecurity Compliance for Government Contractors
Medical Device Legal News with Sam Bernstein: Episode 19
The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar resolved a Circuit split regarding the implied certification theory as a basis for False Claims Act (FCA) liability. While...more
Because qui tam claims sound in fraud, under precedent and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relators are required to plead their claims with a heightened degree of specificity that many, having limited...more
On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in three cases asking the court to resolve a circuit split regarding the application of the particularity pleading requirement for allegations of fraud in False Claims...more
The US' ongoing trade wars—with various trading partners and particularly with China—are everywhere in the news. Putting politics and policy aside, the "trade wars" reflect a basic disagreement over the rules that should...more
The recent federal court opinion issued in United States ex rel. Integra Med Analytics, LLC v. Baylor Scott & White Health, et al, illustrates the continued importance of examining the plausibility of allegations made in qui...more
On July 31, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to hospital operator HCA and dismiss relator Thomas Bingham’s allegations. Bingham v. HCA (S.D....more
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently dismissed a complaint-in-intervention filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in U.S. ex rel. Swoben v. Secure Horizons. As previously reported,...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion addressing the False Claims Act's intent requirement. U.S. ex rel. Phalp v. Lincare Holdings, Inc., No. 16-10532, ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. May 26,...more
The Escobar and Sanford-Brown Decisions - This summer, the United States Supreme Court undertook to resolve the long-running circuit split over the validity and scope of the implied false certification theory of...more
In the three months since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, lower court decisions suggest a trend of strict interpretation of the high court’s...more
On June 16, 2016, a unanimous Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar (“Escobar”). The Court ruled that under certain circumstances the theory of “implied...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar reframes when falsity may be implied under the False Claims Act (FCA) and raises the bar for materiality under the statute. Though the...more
We previously reported on the viability of the “implied certification” theory of FCA liability based on oral argument before the Supreme Court in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar. We concluded that the...more
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar et al., holding that the so-called “implied certification” theory is viable under the False Claims Act...more
On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion (“Op.”) in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar (“Escobar”), a case testing the viability and scope of the implied certification theory of False Claims Act...more
On September 21, 2015, counsel for AT&T, Inc., and other telecommunications providers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split over what relators asserting FCA claims must do to meet Federal Rule of Civil...more
On September 22, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah dismissed a qui tam complaint brought against Triumph Gear Systems, Inc. (“TGS”) and its parent company Triumph Group, Inc. (“Triumph”). In an opinion...more
On September 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Chicago dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) case against the City of Chicago, because the qui tam complaint did not satisfy the relevant pleading...more
Not every mistake or negligent act gives rise to liability under the False Claims Act. That principle has long been central to the FCA. But the dividing line– between making a mistake, on the one hand, and “knowingly” or...more
In an unpublished decision issued on Thursday, August 13, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reemphasized Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s “stringent particularity requirement” when it affirmed a lower court’s...more