Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Rule 9(b) Pleading Requirements Case
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.03.14
The Supreme Court has followed the government's recommendation (discussed in a previous bullet point and blog post) not to hear an appeal challenging the dismissal of relator's complaint in U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, 707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013), for failure to allege specific false claims instead of a false scheme – an issue over which the government admits there is "at least some continuing uncertainty." The Court has invited the government's views on granting cert. in another prominent FCA case, KBR, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Carter (addressing the scope of the FCA's first-to-file bar and the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) (discussed here), but the Solicitor General has not yet weighed in.
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 | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.21.26
