Groups Urge Congressional Scrutiny of D.C. Attorney General’s Use of Private Attorneys
Concerns Mount Over Outside Counsel Contracts and Litigation Agendas
Massachusetts v. Universal Health
(U.S. Supreme Court, filed January 26, 2016): Arguing that false certification claims should not be subject to the False Claims Act and that the Supreme Court should help reign in the rampant FCA abuse occurring in the courts.
The Court remanded case back to lower court but held that “[T]he implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability, at least where two conditions are satisfied: first, the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided; and second, the defendant’s failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory or contractual requirements makes those representations half truths”. The Court went on to say that, “the False Claims Act liability for failing to disclose violations of legal requirements does not turn upon whether those requirements were expressly designated as conditions of payment. . . [N]ot every violation of such a requirement gives rise to liability.” The materiality requirement was intended to be “rigorous” and “demanding.” Case was decided on June 15, 2016.
Latest News
View all news
America’s $367 Billion Lawsuit Epidemic
The Hidden Tax Crushing Families and Businesses
$745 Million Verdict in Coastal Litigation Exemplifies Louisiana’s ‘Judicial Hellhole®’ Status
Excessive Litigation Costs Residents $1,011 Annually and Jeopardizes 40,000 Jobs Each Year
Alarming Expansion in Public Nuisance Litigation Revealed by ATRA Report
From Social Media to Car Thefts, New Litigation Trends Threaten Entire Industries
Georgia Legislature Passes Landmark Tort Reform Bill
ATRA Applauds Passage, Anticipates Governor’s Signature on SB 68
The trial lawyer playbook: How aggressive advertising and junk science are costing Californians
In 2024, legal services ads hit $164 million in LA, part of a 39% national rise, fueling aggressive marketing, third-party funding, and straining California’s economy and courts.