X

Reset Password

Username:

Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.

False Claims Act Statistics, News & Analysis

FCA Cert. Monitor: Petitions Concerning Materiality After Escobar and the Original Source Exception Before the Court

After some dereliction of our FCA cert. monitoring duties, FCA Cert. Monitor is back. There currently are 10 FCA cases on the Supreme Court’s docket, raising materiality after Escobar, the first-to-file and public disclosure bars, and the Rule 9(b) pleading standard, among other issues.

Read More

Litigation Update: Ninth Circuit Stays Mandate to allow Gilead to Seek Cert on Key Post-Escobar Issues

We reported previously on yet another implied certification case raising significant questions about materiality and falsity in the post-Escobar world, United States ex. rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., in which the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case.

Read More
  • 26
  • September
  • 2017

Share on:

False Claims Act Cert. Monitor: Eight FCA Petitions on the 2017 Docket So Far

With the first day of fall comes the new term at the Supreme Court, and with the new term comes the chance to catch up with petitions we wrote about last year and with new petitions filed over the summer. We know of at least six FCA petitions that were set to be considered at the Court’s Long Conference on September 25, and we should learn their fates this week. Meanwhile, we have tracked down two other petitions still in briefing. These petitions touch on everything from the Rule 9(b) pleading standard, to reverse false claims, to knowledge in the face of ambiguous rules, to Escobar’s two-part falsity test, to sanctions for relator misconduct.

Read More

False Claims Act Cert. Monitor: Defendant Asks Court to Resolve Asserted Rule 9(b) Split and Reverse FCA Liability for "Contingent" Obligations

Victaulic, a manufacturer of pipe fittings, asked the Supreme Court in late May to review a Third Circuit decision we have written about twice before in a petition captioned Victaulic Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC, No. 16-1398. Victaulic asks the Court to take up two issues: (1) whether Rule 9(b)’s pleading standard requires allegations of an “opportunity for fraud,” of “actual false claims,” or of “particular details of a scheme paired with reliable indicia of fraud,” and (2) whether an alleged failure to pay a “contingent” obligation that arises only after the exercise of discretion by the government is actionable as a reverse FCA claim.

Read More

Bon Voyage, US ex rel ABLE v. US Bank: Cert. Denied in CVSG’d Public Disclosure Case

We have been writing about the relator’s cert. petition in U.S. ex rel. ABLE v. US Bank16-130since the earliest days of LLB, but today we say good-bye to that petition about the public disclosure bar because the Supreme Court denied cert, as the Solicitor General recommended.  In other news, because the “ex rel.” might catch some readers’ eyes, we note that the Court also denied cert. in U.S. ex rel. Bauchwitz v. Holloman16-1185, a cert. petition we did not cover because despite being a qui tam, it did not raise FCA issues.

Read More

False Claims Act Cert. Monitor: Attorneys’ Fees, Reverse False Claims, Public Disclosure Bar, and Government Employees as Relators Feature in Three New Petitions

Three new FCA relator cert. petitions have landed in the past few weeks, covering the gamut of FCA legal issues.

First, the relator in U.S. ex rel. Harper v. Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District, 16-1278, takes us back to 1L Property, alleging that the Army in 1949 granted the defendant water district a “determinable fee simple estate subject to a possibility of reverter interest retained by the United States.” In other words, the government gave the water district government land to keep so long as the land was used for recreation, conservation, etc. The relator contends that when the defendant entered into oil and gas leases on the land but kept the land and the lease income, it knowingly and improperly avoided an obligation to return the property and income to the government—i.e., a conversion reverse false claim. The question presented to the Court is whether, for a reverse false claim, the relator needed to plead that the defendant subjectively knew that it was violating the terms of the deed and had not committed a mistake of law. A potential difficulty for this petition, however, is that neither Sixth Circuit’s majority nor the dissent focused on the question of subjective knowledge of mistake of law, but rather on whether the relator pleaded sufficient facts from which the court could infer that the defendant “knew or should have known” of the requirement to return the property. The response is currently due June 26, 2017.

Read More

Filter By

Sign Up for Updates

Receive email news and alerts about False Claims Act/Qui Tam Litigation from V&E

Dates

Follow Us On Linkedin