This late-summer edition of Commercial Roundup features a notable ruling on personal jurisdiction, a pair of False Claims Act decisions, a couple of opinions tossing class certification orders, a 2-1 split in a securities fraud case (the dissent has the better end of it), a rare victory for plaintiffs in an action for unlawful maintenance
A happy outcome for counsel
All you in-house lawyers out there might want to raise a hearty cheer for the D.C. Circuit. Outside counsel may want to clap also. For a panel of the appeals court held in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 14-5055 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014), that you can convert mandatory
The South Florida Water Management District took funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, not to fix hurricane damage to levees and canals but to make "permanent flood control repairs". United States ex rel. Lesinski v. South Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., No. 12-16082 (11th Cir. Jan. 2, 2014).
Or so an ex-employee of the District alleged in a
The Fourth Circuit reversed a judgment that awarded nothing — zilch — on a winning $50 million False Claims Act claim for civil penalties.
The panel first ruled that FSA relator Kurt Bunk had "standing" to sue under the statute despite his lack of personal injury. The harm to the federal government (from a scheme
If you watch a lot of daytime TV, you may have seen lots of ads by for-profit schools. The pitches promise you an awesome job, a lot of pay, more sex-appeal, and even, in some cases, super-human powers.
But did you ever think about the people whose job it is to get you to pony
The First Circuit sits in Boston. Which when Blawgletter went to law school called itself "The Hub". As in "Hub of the Universe". Which we found charming. Also troubling.
True, though? Kinda.
Today the court that sits in the Hub held that a qui tam — False Claims Act — claim about Harvard Medical School
Blawgletter often handles business cases on a contingent fee basis. We earn a percentage of the client's recovery. No recovery, no fee.
But guess what? The client may owe tax on the recovery. Which could of course affect the client's net. And the Internal Revenue Service may regard the entire recovery — including the contingent