Companies operating in heavily regulated industries are subject to a morass of statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements that, to be generous to the government drafters, are often less than clear. But ambiguity has never dissuaded relators from bringing FCA suits based on alleged noncompliance with the relators’ subjective view of the applicable law. Two recent decisions reaffirm an important protection for companies defending these types of suits—that reliance on a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute or regulation generally precludes a finding of knowing or reckless conduct necessary to impose FCA liability.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
FTA Withdraws EEO Program Guidance for Federal Transit Funding Recipients • DOJ’s FOCUS Initiative — The Rise of Data-Miner Whistleblowers • OMB Rule Proposes Significant Changes to Federal Financial Assistance Requirements • Defense Contractor Settles Cybersecurity False Claims Act Allegations • NDAA Provisions Would Reshape Pentagon’s Use of Ownership Stakes in Private Companies
No Ambiguity Here: Multiple Courts Reaffirm That Reasonable Interpretations of Ambiguous Statutes or Regulations Defeat Scienter
Markus Mainka | Shutterstock
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.