Chamber Litigation Blog

Ethan P. Davis, Jamie Allyson Lang, Matthew V.H. Noller, King & Spalding LLP

This week’s top False Claims Act (FCA) developments include: a joint announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) touting the federal government’s recovery of more than $5.0 billion in healthcare fraud judgments and settlements in fiscal year 2021; a federal court decision denying a motion to dismiss a qui tam action; and three recent government settlements of FCA claims.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Tamra Moore, Yelena Kotlarsky, King & Spalding LLP

This week’s top False Claims Act (FCA) developments include: a published Fourth Circuit decision affirming dismissal of an FCA suit on Rule 9(b) and materiality grounds; a district court decision dismissing several relators from an FCA suit based on the public disclosure bar, the first-to-file bar, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), which requires clarity in complaints; and three government settlements of FCA claims.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Tamra Moore, Matthew V.H. Noller, King & Spalding LLP

This week’s top False Claims Act (FCA) developments include: a federal district court decision holding that a Puerto Rico government agency cannot be sued under the FCA; a Fourth Circuit decision affirming summary judgment in favor of an FCA defendant on scienter grounds; and two government settlements of FCA claims.

Jennifer Dickey was recently a guest on the Federalist Society’s SCOTUScast Podcast, providing post-decision analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Badgerow v. Walters.  The case concerned the federal district courts’ jurisdiction to consider motions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards; the Supreme Court unfortunately reached an 8-1 decision limiting such jurisdiction.  For more from Jenn on the case, listen here.   

Last week, the Fourth Circuit unanimously upheld a 2020 West Virginia law prohibiting trial lawyers from using misleading tactics, like falsely labeling their ads as “medical alerts” or using the word “recall” when no recall had been issued, to scare consumers into signing up for lawsuits. Trial lawyers sued in federal court to block the law, which they claimed violates the First Amendment.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Jamie Allyson Lang, Matthew V.H. Noller, King & Spalding LLP

This week’s top False Claims Act (FCA) developments include: a Seventh Circuit decision applying the Safeco scienter test to dismiss an FCA claim; an Eleventh Circuit decision addressing how to apply the FCA’s first-to-file bar; and a district court decision dismissing FCA claims based on alleged mislabeling of prescription drugs. 

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Tamra Moore, Jamie Allyson Lang, Matthew V.H. Noller, King & Spalding LLP 

This week’s top False Claims Act (FCA) developments include: a proposed rule requiring Department of Agriculture contractors to certify their compliance with federal and state labor laws; the first settlement of an FCA case under DOJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative; and a decision by a Massachusetts federal court denying attorney’s fees to relators under the FCA’s first-to-file rule.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Tamra Moore, Matthew V.H. Noller, King & Spalding LLP

This week’s report on top False Claims Act (FCA) developments includes: DOJ’s announcement that it recovered more than $5.6 billion from FCA actions during fiscal year 2021; two recent settlements reflecting the government’s ongoing use of the FCA to pursue allegations of healthcare fraud; an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision reversing the dismissal of a qui tam action under the public-disclosure bar; and a petition for certiorari seeking review of a Seventh Circuit decision in an FCA case raising questions concerning Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and the scope of implied certification liability under the FCA.

Supreme Court Urges Courts to Undertake a Context-Specific Scrutiny of Excessive-Fee Claims in ERISA Cases and Pay Heed to the “Range of Reasonable Judgments a Fiduciary May Make”

Jaime A. Santos and Christina Hennecken, Goodwin Procter LLP

On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hughes v. Northwestern University, an important ERISA case.  Although the Court’s decision vacated a Seventh Circuit victory for plan sponsor Northwestern, it provided helpful guidance to plan sponsors: The Court made clear that the plausibility pleading requirement as articulated in Twombly and Iqbal applies with full force in ERISA excessive-fee cases, and it reaffirmed the importance of a context-sensitive scrutiny of allegations at the pleading stage.