On Friday, January 13, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the False Claims Act (“FCA”) covers compliance lapses tied to regulatory interpretations that are incorrect but “objectively reasonable.” The Supreme Court granted petitions for writs of certiorari in two cases, United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., which will be consolidated and set for oral argument. The Supreme Court’s decision in the cases should resolve a circuit split over the role of a defendant’s subjective intent in determining scienter.
The FCA imposes liability on any person who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment” to the government, or who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used” a “false statement” material to such a claim.31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B). The Act defines “knowingly” to mean that a person (i) “has actual knowledge of the information”; (ii) “acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information”; or (iii) “acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.”31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(A).
In applying the statute’s knowledge requirements, several circuits follow the Supreme Court’s standard in Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr,551 U.S. 47 (2007), a Fair Credit Reporting Act case holding that a defendant does not have the necessary scienter, and has not acted with “reckless disregard,” if its conduct is consistent with an “...
Washington, May 6 (IANS) India's Operation Sindoor, launched after the heinous terror attack that took place in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22 last year and witnessed Pakistan-backed ter...