Earlier Complaint Fails 9(b), But Bars FCA Suit
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.08.11
Addressing a question of first impression for it, the D.C. Circuit in U.S. ex rel Batiste v. SLM Corp. held that the FCA’s “first-to-file” rule deprives the district courts of subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint filed earlier alleges “the same material elements of a fraudulent scheme,” even if the earlier complaint did not meet the heightened standard of Rule 9(b). In so holding, the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the Sixth Circuit in Walburn v. Lockheed Martin Corp., noting that nothing in the FCA incorporates Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement into the first-to-file rule and that the earlier complaint was sufficient to allow the government to investigate the fraudulent scheme.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
