Defective Complaint Can Still Have Preclusive Effect Under FCA's First-to-File Bar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.12.13
In U.S. ex rel. Heineman-Guta v. Guidant Corp. (May 31, 2013), the First Circuit weighed in on a jurisprudential split over the FCA's first-to-file bar between courts that hold that the earlier-filed complaint must meet Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement for pleading fraud in order to have preclusive effect and those that do not. Affirming the dismissal of the relator's claims, the First Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit and other district courts in rejecting the application of Rule 9(b) to the first-to-file bar and holding that dismissal is appropriate so long as the earlier complaint put the government on sufficient notice to initiate an investigation into the alleged fraud.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
