Fourth Circuit Declines to Address Use of Stat Sampling in FCA Cases
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.16.17
On February 14, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in U.S. ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Cmty. Inc. on one of the two key issues that the district court had certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): (1) whether the government possesses an unreviewable veto authority over proposed settlements and (2) whether statistical sampling is an appropriate methodology for establishing liability and damages in False Claims Act cases. On the first issue, the Fourth Circuit joined the Fifth and Sixth Circuits and held that the government has an unreviewable right to veto FCA settlements even after electing not to intervene. On statistical sampling, the district court had ruled that statistical sampling was not permissible because of the facts and available evidence in the case, but upon review, the Fourth Circuit determined that the appeal of that issue had been “improvidently granted” because the use of sampling is an evidentiary issue, not a pure question of law as required for interlocutory review. Accordingly, companies and FCA practitioners hoping for appellate-level guidance on the controversial issue of sampling will have to wait for another day.
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


