Ambiguity Remains After Escobar
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.09.16
In U.S. ex rel. Nelson v. Sanford-Brown Ltd. (Oct. 24, 2016), the Seventh Circuit, applying the materiality standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Escobar (discussion available here), held that the relator’s allegations that the college inflated grades and job placement figures and paid bonuses to employees for recruitment to fraudulently obtain federal student aid money failed because there was no evidence that the college had made any express or implied representations with its claims for payment or evidence that the government’s payment decision would likely have been different had it known of the alleged misrepresentations. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit in U.S. ex rel. Miller v. Weston Educ. Inc. (Oct. 19, 2016) held that similar allegations withstood summary judgment (as noted by C&M here), suggesting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Escobar may not have resolved the circuit split on implied certification after all.
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


