Recently, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to two False Claims Act (“FCA”) cases to determine whether a defendant who acted with an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of the law can still be liable for “knowingly” breaking the law and submitting false claims to the government. The FCA defines “knowingly,” as acting with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. The Court will review two Seventh Circuit cases, U.S. ex. Rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and U.S. ex. Rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. for this critical question applicable to all who do business with the government or receive government funds. Relators have utilized ambiguous federal regulations to seek large damage awards for, at best, good faith actions by defendants. On the other hand, defendants often argue that their interpretation of certain requirements is reasonable to defeat the scienter requirement.
In Schuette and Proctor, the Seventh Circuit held that the defendants did not knowingly violate the FCA because their pricing practices followed an “objectively reasonable” interpretation of underlying requirements. For these consolidated cases, the Seventh Circuit followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, which held that a defendant could not have the requisite scienter to violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act if the law has “more than one reasonable interpretation,” the defendant acted in accordance with one of those interpretations, and...
Hyderabad: BRS leader Aedla Sudhakar Reddy strongly criticised the statements of HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath regarding the status of Bathukammakunta. The official had claimed that the place...