Bass Berry & Sims – The Second Circuit joined the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits to hold that “the mere fact of a violation” that could give rise to a civil penalty at the government’s discretion does not create an obligation under the FCA’s reverse false claim provision. Instead, “a duty to pay is ‘established’ only when it triggers an immediate and self-executing duty to pay.”
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
FAR 52.222-90 Explained: New Clause May Result in 6,825 Audits Per Year • DOJ Stands Up a New Fraud-Fighting Division: What Government Contractors Need to Know About the National Fraud Enforcement Division • FAR Updates Trade Agreement Act Thresholds • GE’s $36 Million ITAR Penalty — A Wake-Up Call for Export Control Compliance • Treasury Canceled Booz Contracts Over Vetting of IRS Leaker, Bessent Says
Second Circuit Addresses “Obligation” Requirement of False Claims Act’s Reverse False Claim Provision
pathdoc | 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.