Alston & Bird Government Contracts Blog

U.S. Supreme Court

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Enhanced FOIA Protection for Contractors’ “Confidential” Commercial or Financial Information

By

For the last 55 years nearly all federal agencies and courts tasked with determining whether a contractor’s “commercial or financial” information is “confidential” for purposes of exemption from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act have had to evaluate – among other things – whether disclosure of the information likely would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), the Supreme Court rejected this decades-long “competitive harm” [...]Read more

Chris Roux and John Hanover Published in The Construction Lawyer on Implied False Certification Liability

By

Alston & Bird partners Chris Roux and John Hanover had their article, “Implied False Certification Liability Under the False Claims Act: How the Materiality Standard Offers Protection after Escobar,” published in the Winter 2018 edition of The Construction Lawyer. The article takes an in-depth look at the viability of implied false certification claims under the False Claims Act by examining their use before and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Escobar decision, the key elements of the decision, and how varying interpretations of the decision apply to the construction industry. Readers [...]Read more

Fifth Circuit Ruling Shows Government’s Actions Are Key Under Escobar

By

Government contractors continue to closely follow the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark False Claims Act decision in Universal Health v. U.S. ex rel Escobar. Most recently, in U.S. ex rel Harman v. Trinity Industries, the Fifth Circuit considered the heightened standard whistleblowers must meet under Escobar to prove materiality if the government continued to pay claims despite its knowledge of misconduct allegations. In Trinity Industries, Trinity, a manufacturing company and government contractor, appealed the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The underlying [...]Read more

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Significant False Claims Act Case

By

Our colleagues Jackie Baratian and Jason Popp summarize here the oral argument for Universal Health Services v. United Sates ex rel. Escobar heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 19th, laying out the various arguments presented by counsel and addressed by the Justices.  As they note, much of the argument focused on the Restatement of Contracts, as a source of “fraud” in contracting common law, to help draw a distinction between an implied promise and an immaterial unspoken performance detail.  The Justices also took note of the decision in Halper, in which the Supreme Court in [...]Read more

Supreme Court to Rule on the Implied Certification Theory

By

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in a case that will have significant implications for cases brought under the False Claims Act (FCA). In Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7, the Court will hear argument on two important questions. First, whether the “implied certification” theory of legal falsity is viable under the FCA, a question on which the circuit courts of appeal are divided. If the Court concludes the implied certification theory is viable, then the second issue it will consider is whether government contractors’ reimbursement claims [...]Read more