All's Not Fair in FCA Wars
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.28.13
In U.S. ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2013), the district court disqualified relators' counsel for using privileged materials taken by the relators when they left the employ of the defendant to craft their claims and pleadings. The court found that (1) the relators' counsel were put on notice by the government of the potentially privileged nature of the documents and had an obligation to take reasonable remedial actions before using the materials; (2) the use of the privileged materials to craft claims was alone sufficient to show a risk of prejudice; (3) no showing of bad faith is required for disqualification, but the fact that relators' counsel decided to quote the documents in pleadings without seeking guidance from the court was "tantamount to bad faith;" and (4) even if defendant provided final copies of the materials that were almost identical to the privileged draft versions, as relators' counsel claimed, that did not excuse their obligation to take reasonable remedial actions regarding the privileged versions.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms
