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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
