Appellate Government Contracts Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution White Collar, Internal Investigations & Compliance
Subscribe to Our Mailing List >
The United States Supreme Court started the long weekend on Friday evening by announcing it would hear a consolidated pair of cases that should clarify a critical aspect of the False Claims Act (FCA). These cases are worth knowing for any company that does business with the federal government (healthcare companies, defense and government contractors, tariff payors, etc.). This client alert addresses the issues to be decided.
What is the issue in these cases?
It’s no secret that doing business with the federal government requires wading into a sea of government regulations. Companies that submit claims to the government are required to certify compliance with applicable regulations. But on occasion the government promulgates ambiguous regulations and gives no clarifying guidance. What happens when a company considers the ambiguous regulation, arrives at a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous regulation, and then acts on its interpretation, believing it is being compliant, only to later find out its interpretation was incorrect?
That is the situation in United States ex rel. Schutte et al. v. Supervalu Inc. et al. and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. In those cases, the companies interpreted ambiguity in favor of their own compliance but are now being said to have “knowingly” submitted...
Dish Wireless LLC agreed to pay roughly $17 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act, common law, and the Communications Act of 1934 relating to claims submitted to Fed...