On August 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a long-anticipated False Claims Act (FCA) opinion (U.S. ex rel. Rose v. Stephens, No. 17-15111, 2018 WL 4038194 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018)), weighing in on how to apply the implied false certification theory and the materiality requirement in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision from two years ago (Univ. Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016) (Escobar)). The court’s ruling narrowed the application of the implied false certification theory, but provided a generous interpretation of the materiality standard, making it a mixed bag for defendants.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
Proposed Updates to DFARS Regarding Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence • Slotting vs. Conformance – The Door Into Summer • OMB Plans to Make IT Contract Data Collection Public • Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment: BIS’s Shift to More Aggressive Enforcement • Navigating Self-Reporting Under the DOJ’s New Corporate Enforcement Policy
The Ninth Circuit in Rose Prunes the Thorns from Escobar’s Rigorous and Demanding Materiality Requirement
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.