A Fourth Circuit ruling in a False Claims Act case has created a 4-4 circuit split over the issue of the act’s knowledge requirement, Bradley partner Elisha Kobre explains. This makes the issue ripe for the US Supreme Court, where a ruling on whether an objective or subjective standard should apply will resonate in FCA litigation for years, he says.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision Sept. 23 interpreting the False Claims Act’s heavily litigated “knowledge” element makes it highly likely that the US Supreme Court will grant certiorari on the issue.
The meaning of the FCA’s knowledge requirement—the subject of a 4-4 split in the courts of appeals and intense debate in the lower courts—is essential to determining FCA liability.
The ruling in United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales LLC and two Seventh Circuit decisions with certiorari petitions already pending in the Supreme Court are similar. The courts in these cases have said that a defendant cannot act “knowingly” under the FCA if the actions are an “objectively reasonable interpretation” of the statute and there is no “authoritative guidance” to the contrary. As these courts have succinctly stated, “this objective standard precludes inquiry into a defendant’s subjective intent.”
Several courts have reached this conclusion by applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, which applied a purely objective standard to the scienter, or knowledge,...
Kolkata: Kolkata Police has been grappling with a fresh challenge since the past week — controlling fake news. While it initially started with fake circulars, beginning with "restrictions" on cert...