1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Defendant’s Reasonable Interpretation of Ambiguous Regulation Negates FCA Liability

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.


Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.24.26

California Considering A Massive Expansion of Its Antitrust Laws

Legislative efforts to significantly expand California’s antitrust laws are working their way through the state legislature. The most comprehensive overhaul is Assembly Bill 1776 — the Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, on March 23, 2026. AB 1776 is modeled closely after draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) in December. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to AB 1776 because of its potentially dramatic impact, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation and increased compliance costs....