False Claim Need Not Be "Presented" By Defendant
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.20.05
In the latest in a series of cases interpreting the False Claims Act's "presentment" element, the court in U.S. v. Sequel Contractors, Inc., 2005 WL 3307026 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2005), held that a contractor submitting a false claim for payment to its county-government customer, which then submitted a request for partial reimbursement to the federal government, could be liable under the FCA, because the statute only requires that someone (in this case the county-government customer), and not necessarily the defendant itself, "present" the false claim to the federal government, as long as the defendant "causes" the ultimate presentation. The court also held that, although actionable false claims must be made "knowingly," the knowledge in question is knowledge of the claim's falsity, not knowledge that the ultimate recipient of the claim would be the federal government.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
