False Claims Act Insights - How a Marine Fisheries Dispute Opened an FCA Can of Worms
False Claims Act Insights - If Everything Matters, Nothing Does: Parsing Materiality in FCA Disputes
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: SEC Disclosure Issues for Life Sciences Companies
Life Sciences Quarterly (Q3 2019): SEC Enforcement and Class Actions Regarding FDA Communications
The materiality standard in fraud cases may soon shift dramatically if the comments of Supreme Court justices during a recent oral argument are any indication. A rollback of the materiality standard would be the latest in a...more
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed judgment against relators in a case alleging that a group of dairy farmers growing corn violated the False Claims Act by filing false insurance claims paid by the Federal...more
According to a recent decision in United States ex rel. Scollick v. Narula, Case No. 14-cv-1339 (D.D.C. Nov. 6, 2020), the fraudulent inducement theory of False Claims Act (“FCA”) liability does not require plaintiffs to...more
The pace of False Claims Act (FCA) litigation remained furious over the past year. Companies (and individuals) in all sectors of the economy continue to face the ever-present threat of FCA enforcement whenever they do...more
The ruling in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Escobar "rejects a system of government traps, zaps, and zingers that permits the government to retain the benefit of a substantially conforming good or service but to recover...more
The False Claims Act (FCA), initially enacted in 1863 during the Civil War, was sponsored by the Lincoln administration to curtail the rampant fraud and excessive profiteering being perpetuated by government contractors, who,...more
The Supreme Court has made it clear that, even at the pleadings stage, relators (or the government) must plead facts to support materiality with plausibility and particularity. For False Claims Act (FCA) defendants who...more
In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that the implied false certification theory may form the basis for liability under the False Claims Act (FCA), resolving a split of among the federal...more
Summary of Decision - On June 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided a case which could have significant impact on healthcare providers. In Universal Health Services Inc. v Escobar, the Court expanded...more
On Thursday of last week, the Supreme Court for the first time addressed the “implied certification” theory of liability under the False Claims Act. The Court ruled unanimously that the theory is valid in certain...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
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 June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar unanimously upheld the implied certification theory of False Claims Act (FCA) liability. The Court ruled that a party can...more
A unanimous Supreme Court issued its long-awaited and closely watched decision today on the scope of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), and the Court affirmed the FCA’s long reach. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States...more
The Court’s rejection of the condition of payment analysis and adoption of a rigorous materiality standard represents a significant shift in how courts must analyze FCA cases premised on underlying regulatory or contractual...more