Solicitor General Weighs in (Sort of) on Rule 9(b)
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.27.14
In October 2013, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to express the government's views on a pending petition for certiorari in U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, whose central issue concerns the requisite level of particularity required by Rule 9(b) in FCA cases. The Solicitor General has now asked the Supreme Court to deny the relator's petition, calling the case "not a suitable vehicle" for resolving the particularity question (because the lower court reached the correct result on other grounds), while expressing the government's view that "a qui tam complaint satisfies Rule 9(b) if it contains detailed allegations supporting a plausible inference that false claims were submitted to the government, even if the complaint does not identify specific requests for payment"(emphasis added).
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
