Compliance & EnforcementFalse Claims Act
ArchiveFalse Claims Act
3,592 articles from the Compliance & Enforcement Brief.
Articles
🔒 Members Only · Compliance & Enforcement BriefYou’ve reached the member portion of this brief.Members read the full analysis and the source documents in every Brief, six days a week.
Firm Settles Allegations it Used Billing Tricks to Inflate Revenues on Government Contracts
A Kickback Violates the FCA If There’s a Causal Connection Between the Kickback and a False Claim. How Strong Must that Connection Be?
Three Convicted in Conspiracy Defrauding Medicare with $93 Million in Fictional Home Healthcare Claims
Qui Tam Suit Alleged Same Scheme as Prior FCA Suit. Why Wasn’t the Subsequent Suit Barred by the First-to-File Rule?
Stanford University Pays $1.9 Million after Failing to Disclose China Funding
Genomic Health Inc. to Pay $32.5 Million for Allegedly Improper Billing for Genetic Cancer Screening Tests
It’s Not “Voluntary” If You Have To Do It: Court Dismisses Another FCA Lawsuit Against U.S. Oncology Under Public Disclosure Bar
Federal Judge Challenges Causation Standard to Qualify as a Kickback
Issues of Fact Regarding Materiality Preclude Summary Judgment and Send FCA Case to Trial
Relator Said Boeing Made False Claims in Connection with Air Force One Contract. Why Did the Court Dismiss the Suit?
South Carolina Physician and Nephrology Practice Settles Kickback Allegations for $585,000
Anti-Fraud Group Argues Constitutionality of FCA Whistleblower Language
False Claims Act’s Materiality Requirement Spotlighted Again in Recently-Decided Third Circuit Case
Cigna Group to Pay $172 Million to Resolve FCA Allegations of Medicare Overbilling
Boeing to Pay $8.1 Million to Resolve Allegations it Lied to Navy about Manufacturing Checks
Circuit Split on FCA Causation Deepens with Upcoming First Circuit Ruling
Defendant May Have Done Something Skeezy But that Doesn’t Mean They Violated the FCA
The False Claims Act in Cybersecurity Enforcement: Unsealed Complaint Signals Growing Use
FCA Defendant Was a Partnership. The Relator Was a Former Partner. Why Couldn’t the Relator’s Knowledge of Falsity Be Imputed to the Defendant?
Keep reading
