Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The False Claims Act After <i>Escobar:</i> A Three-Part Test
In a unanimous opinion in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 195 L. Ed. 2d 348 (U.S. 2016), the Supreme Court provided a new framework for assessing false certification liability under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA creates civil liability for any person who knowingly submits a false claim to the government or knowingly makes a false record or statement to get a false claim paid by the government. It defines a “claim” as a demand for money or property made directly to the federal government or to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the money is to be spent on the government's behalf in anticipation of reimbursement by the government.
The false certification theory of liability arises when a government contractor fails to comply with contractual provisions, statutes, or regulations, and the contractor has either expressly or impliedly certified such compliance. Escobar sets forth a new framework for such claims, which can be summed up in a three-part test:
- Does the request for payment contain a “specific” representation about the goods or services provided?
- If yes,
a) Was it false? or
b) Did the representation omit that the requestor had not complied with a statutory, regulatory or contractual requirement, such that it made the representation a half-truth?
”' 3. Was the misrepresentation material to the government's payment decision?
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?