Two Berger Montague attorneys recently had a law review article published concerning the False Claims Act (“FCA”). The article is entitled “Misguided Meanders: The ‘Trail of Fraud’ under the Public Disclosure Bar of the False Claims Act,” published in 42 Univ. of Dayton Law Rev. 161 (2018).
This article presents a case study of a CFO’s accounting fraud that led him to prison. The scheme was a securities fraud aimed at investors. It involved ghost revenues, fictitious invoices and shipping documents, cost-of-good sold entries that were delayed or avoided altogether, and pulling otherwise legitimate revenue into earlier accounting periods.
In recent years, a new standard appears to have emerged regarding class certification. Courts have largely dismissed the notion – originally derived from Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin – that they cannot resolve issues relevant to the merits in deciding whether to certify a class.
Release of Claims and the False Claims Act: An Employee’s Ability to Pursue Qui Tam Claims Against Its Former Employer After Signing a Release
In ruling on the viability of a qui tam suit filed after the relator has signed a release of claims with the alleged defendant, the courts focus on whether the government knew of the fraud alleged prior to the filing of the complaint and use a balancing test which weighs competing public policy interests when deciding whether or not to enforce the release.
Butt out is the message from four of the five largest cigarette manufacturers who have filed suit in a Washington, D.C., federal court challenging new FDA regulations that require them to print nine graphic images on their cigarette packaging.
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) is designed to protect the federal treasury and to deter fraud committed against the government. The FCA places power within the hands of private citizens, allowing them to become “private attorney generals,” and, with the assistance of an attorney paid on a contingent fee basis, challenge government payments on behalf of the government.
Despite thousands of recent print, broadcast and Internet reports about WikiLeaks, the renegade website’s alleged whistleblowing activities and certain documents it has “published,” qui tam remains the first name in whistleblower; “journalist” remains the first name in publishing; and Julian Assange is neither.
The Superiority of Direct Proof of Monopoly Power and Anticompetitive Effects in Antitrust Cases Involving Delayed Entry of Generic Drugs
Branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers in recent years have gone to great lengths to delay the market entry of less expensive, but otherwise functionally identical, generic versions of their brand-name products, spawning multiple lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies challenging these efforts under the federal antitrust laws.
This Article develops two arguments against a possible trend in federal appellate courts toward imposing a new, heightened standard for class certification in antitrust cases. Recent case law can be read to imply that trial judges may make findings of fact on the merits in deciding class certification, including about whether plaintiffs will be able to show with class-wide evidence that every class member was harmed by allegedly anticompetitive conduct.
This casenote examines the Seventh Circuit decision in Hall v. Nalco, Co. which found that a woman cannot be terminated for absences related to infertility treatments.