Solicitor General Weighs in (Sort of) on Rule 9(b)
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.27.14
In October 2013, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to express the government's views on a pending petition for certiorari in U.S. ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, whose central issue concerns the requisite level of particularity required by Rule 9(b) in FCA cases. The Solicitor General has now asked the Supreme Court to deny the relator's petition, calling the case "not a suitable vehicle" for resolving the particularity question (because the lower court reached the correct result on other grounds), while expressing the government's view that "a qui tam complaint satisfies Rule 9(b) if it contains detailed allegations supporting a plausible inference that false claims were submitted to the government, even if the complaint does not identify specific requests for payment"(emphasis added).
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.24.26
California Considering A Massive Expansion of Its Antitrust Laws
Legislative efforts to significantly expand California’s antitrust laws are working their way through the state legislature. The most comprehensive overhaul is Assembly Bill 1776 — the Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, on March 23, 2026. AB 1776 is modeled closely after draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) in December. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to AB 1776 because of its potentially dramatic impact, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation and increased compliance costs.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.23.26
