Defective Pricing & the False Claims Act
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.21.19
The enactments of the False Claim Act (FCA) and the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) were separated by nearly 100 years, yet the two statutes have become kissing cousins, with many defective pricing cases turning into fraud actions. In Defective Pricing & the False Claims Act, published in the April 2019 issue of Thomson Reuters’s Briefing Papers, Crowell & Moring attorneys discuss: (1) the historical factors and practical warning signs linking defective pricing and FCA actions; (2) the burdens and elements of proof in TINA and FCA litigations and how certain elements may overlap and even bolster defenses to both defective pricing and fraud actions; and (3) the procedural elements of TINA and FCA actions—such as stays of proceedings, evidentiary standards, and statutes of limitation—and where these factors may determine the outcomes in both defective pricing and fraud proceedings.
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
