Seal Violation Does Not Mandate Dismissal, Supreme Court Says
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.07.16
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court in State Farm and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby rejected the argument that a violation of the FCA’s seal requirement — here, disclosure of the allegations of the sealed complaint to the news media by relator’s counsel — mandates dismissal of a relator’s complaint, holding instead that such a determination is better left to the discretion of the district court. The Court reasoned that the FCA is silent as to the remedy for violating the seal provision, whereas it expressly mandates dismissal elsewhere, and that a rule mandating dismissal could harm the government’s interests —which the seal requirement was meant to protect — by depriving the government of assistance from relators on which it relies to prosecute FCA claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.17.26
On March 18, 2026, the Antitrust Division (Division) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with Broadway Across America (“BAA”), resolving a criminal antitrust investigation into agreements between BAA and another entertainment company (“Company A”) that included non-compete restrictions on Company A’s ability to offer potentially competing programming. Notably, the restrictions were contained in a vertical agreement by which BAA presented touring shows at theaters owned by Company A. The announcement is a reminder that the agencies continue to scrutinize non-compete agreements contained in business contracts, and all non-compete provisions, even those included between vertical partners, should be reviewed by antitrust counsel.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.16.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.16.26
ROI Tracking as Mens Rea? Novartis Ruling Reframes AKS Pleading Risk
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.15.26
