Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Headlines describing $500-plus million settlements with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in False Claims Act (FCA) cases initiated by whistleblowers — often former employees of defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, and others doing business with the government — have encouraged many disgruntled employees to try it themselves. But they can have a hard time making their own case if the government declines to intervene. Although the 1986 FCA amendments generally made the private action more available, the courts' interpretation of the FCA has not been easy on whistleblowers who stand in court without the United States at their side. As judges weed out unworthy cases, two trends run against the legislative goal of encouraging more whistleblowers, and invite instead a tactical corporate response that undercuts the legislative goal.
Rule 9(b): a Heavy Burden
In practice, the FCA sometimes sets up conflicting goals for potential whistleblowers. When they file their allegations under seal, their primary goal is to attract enough interest of the DOJ Civil Fraud Section to get them to conduct a pre-intervention investigation. This means the complaint must show a fraud that is not only sizable, but clear — quite a challenge when the allegedly defrauded federal program is a complex web of opaque regulations.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.