Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The False Claims Act After <b><i>Escobar:</i></b> A Three-Part Test
In a unanimous opinion in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 195 L. Ed. 2d 348 (U.S. 2016), the Supreme Court provided a new framework for assessing false certification liability under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA creates civil liability for any person who knowingly submits a false claim to the government or knowingly makes a false record or statement to get a false claim paid by the government. It defines a “claim” as a demand for money or property made directly to the federal government or to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient if the money is to be spent on the government's behalf in anticipation of reimbursement by the government.
The false certification theory of liability arises when a government contractor fails to comply with contractual provisions, statutes, or regulations, and the contractor has either expressly or impliedly certified such compliance. Escobar sets forth a new framework for such claims, which can be summed up in a three-part test:
- Does the request for payment contain a “specific” representation about the goods or services provided?
- If yes, a) Was it false? or b) Did the representation omit that the requestor had not complied with a statutory, regulatory or contractual requirement, such that it made the representation a half-truth?
- Was the misrepresentation material to the government's payment decision?
Background
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.