Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Continuing Evolution of the False Claims Act
The number of lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., continues to increase. In 2015 alone, relators filed over 600 qui tam complaints — and courts awarded over $3.5 billion — under the FCA. In these cases, the United States government is the real party in interest, while individual relators (also known as “whistleblowers”) may bring a complaint on behalf of the government. Accompanying this growth are significant FCA decisions including, most recently, Universal Health Services, Inc., v. United States, ex rel.Escobar, 579 U.S. __ (2016), decided in June 2016. In Escobar, the U.S. Supreme Court: 1) examined the materiality requirement of the FCA; and 2) approved “implied” false certification as the basis for the FCA claim. Other important decisions continue to make their way through the courts.
Violating the Seal
On Dec. 6, 2016, in United States ex rel. Rigsby v. State Farm (580 U.S. ___ (2016)), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision resolving a circuit split over whether a case-dispositive sanction must follow when a relator violates the sealing provision of the False Claims Act. Before this decision, courts had not reached consensus on whether a relator who discloses facts about the lawsuit during the sealing period must be sanctioned with dismissal of the case. Under the FCA, a relator's complaint must remain under seal for at least 60 days. During this time, the United States may confidentially review the complaint and supporting evidence to decide whether to intervene and proceed as the primary plaintiff or to decline participation, allowing the relator to pursue its lawsuit as a private litigant.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?