Supreme Court Hears Argument on Implied Certification Theory
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.16
On April 19, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in U.S. v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., which concerns (1) whether the implied certification theory of legal falsity under the FCA is ever viable; and (2) if it is, whether a contractor’s reimbursement claim can be legally false under that theory if the contractor fails to comply with a statute, regulation, or contractual provision that is not an explicit condition of payment. In a post on the Whistleblower Watch Blog, C&M attorneys share first impressions from yesterday’s argument and examine the significance of the case for government contractors who could face potential FCA exposure for failure to comply with myriad contract provisions or regulations.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
