On January 13, 2023, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on a pair of hotly contested Seventh Circuit decisions, paving the way for a decision that will dramatically impact the way in which courts determine liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Specifically at issue is whether the Court's “objectively reasonable” scienter standard for reading a statute or regulation applies to FCA cases, thereby insulating defendants from liability (even when such a reading ultimately turns out wrong), or whether a defendant's contemporaneous subjective understanding of the law or regulation, and its conduct, are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the FCA. At issue in particular is application of the Supreme Court's 2007 Safeco decision (discussed infra) to FCA cases where the basis of the claim turns on the interpretation of a legal obligation, rather than a defendant's factual understanding.
The FCA applies to those who knowingly submit false or fraudulent claims for payment to the federal government.1 To this end, the FCA creates liability for any person who, inter alia, “(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval; [or] (B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.”2 Thus, the party alleging an FCA violation must prove: (1) defendant made false statements or engaged in a fraudulent course of...
[OSEN=Jang Woo-young reporter] Guk Dong-ho, a cast member of ‘Solo Hell 4,’ has been engulfed in bullying allegations following earlier gay rumors. While he clarified the gay rumors, his rebuttal ...