Defendant’s Reasonable Interpretation of Ambiguous Regulation Negates FCA Liability
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 12.01.15
The D.C. Circuit overturned a jury verdict against MWI Corp., represented by C&M, in a long-running civil FCA suit in which the government asserted claims for approximately $225 million in trebled damages (plus additional civil penalties), alleging that false claims and statements were submitted to the Export-Import Bank in connection with eight loans to Nigeria for the purchase of MWI's water pumps. The court held that there was no evidence that the government "had officially warned MWI away from its otherwise facially reasonable interpretation of [an] undefined and ambiguous [regulatory] term" and ruled that, in such a situation, the FCA's knowledge/scienter element cannot be established.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
