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 | 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
