On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court issued eagerly anticipated decisions regarding the scope and reach of the False Claims Act. In US ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway Inc., (22-111), and US ex rel. Schutte et al. v. SuperValu Inc. et al., (21-1326), the Court answered the question which was posed in a prior Norton Rose Fulbright alert)—whether a defendant's contemporaneous subjective understanding or belief about the lawfulness of its conduct is relevant to whether it "knowingly" violated the False Claims Act and whether a post hoc, "objectively reasonable" interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation can shield a defendant from liability. As background, the conduct in question was an alleged fraudulent prescription drug billing arrangement in which the two subject companies charged the government a "usual and customary" price for the drugs while actually charging many customers lower prices through price-match discounts.
Both sides of the issue proclaimed doomsday-type scenarios if the Court ruled against them. The whistleblowers stated that it would frustrate and chill False Claims Act enforcement and enable crafty lawyers to make up post hoc reasons why their client acted in an objectively reasonable fashion while ignoring any contemporaneous belief their client had that the conduct was in fact wrongful. And the Defense bar warned of opening the False Claims Act floodgates if defendants were not able to raise objectively reasonable defenses.
After an oral argument in...
Tanya Mittal's brother had an exclusive interaction with Zoom/Telly Talk India Tanya Mittal has been making headlines in the Bigg Boss 19 house with her statements and actions. Her tall claims abo...