Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Over the last 20 years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and whistleblowers, with the support of many courts, have become increasingly aggressive in pursuing supposed false claims for federal reimbursement under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. ” 3729-3733. In 2015, for example, the DOJ reported 737 new FCA matters and recovered more than $3.5 billion in FCA settlements and judgments, including more than $1.9 billion from health care industry defendants.
A key to the recent onslaught has been the development of the “implied certification” theory of false statements ' the government vendor makes no direct false statement and provides the goods and/or services, but nevertheless is subject to penalties and possibly treble damages on the theory that the vendor implicitly agreed to obey all rules and regulations that are conditions of payment, and implicitly lied about doing so in submitting a claim. The Supreme Court is is poised to decide the viability of this approach.
Background
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?