Latest Articles

Third Circuit Clarifies Public Disclosure Bar in False Claims Act In United States v. Omnicare, Inc., the Third Circuit clarified the operation of the public disclosure bar in the False Claims Act (FCA). The court held that publicly available information “could not have reasonably or plausibly supported an inference” of fraud. This information included government reports of known fraud schemes and a 10-k financial disclosure by the defendant company. The Third Circuit rejected application of…
Many conclude that a C plea means a Corporate Plea. Used infrequently, a C plea restricts discretion of a federal district judge to sentence a criminal defendant. By expressing his concerns about a proposed C plea for a company, one federal judge changed the result. In an article published by the American Health Lawyers Association, Rebecca Worthington and Tom Zeno analyze the case. Additional posts about this case can be found here and here.…
Tariffs are not the only weapon of retaliation countries may wield in a trade war.  Governments can pressure trade adversaries at the bargaining table by opening other fronts, such as limiting foreign investment, halting drug enforcement cooperation, or, of particular concern to the corporate world, scrutinizing companies doing business within their jurisdictions.  What does this mean?…
In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court protected cell site location data. Now “the Government must generally obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring such records.” Read here about the decision and its implications for organizations, particularly technology providers. The article is written by Squire Patton Boggs attorneys Tara Swaminatha, Robin Campbell, Tom Zeno, and Katy Spicer.      …
Personal location information held by a third party now receives heightened protection from disclosure to law enforcement Thanks to Timothy Ivory Carpenter, Cell Site Location Information (“CSLI”) is now part of our vernacular.  More important, in light of the Supreme Court’s June 2018 ruling in Carpenter v. United States, a company’s collection and retention of a person’s historical whereabouts (location information) now receives heightened protection from search and seizure by law enforcement.   …
Even the best laid plan for data security requires follow through. A cancer center was penalized $4.3 million by the government for failing to complete its encryption plan for devices.  The decision is instructive even for companies not specifically required to protect data under government regulation. Tom Zeno and Elliot Golding of Squire Patton Boggs discuss the case and its lesson. Go here for the article.  …
Let’s hope you don’t pay that much to encrypt electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI). How about a total of $4.3 million over two years? Well, that’s the total penalty for encryption violations assessed by Health and Human Services (HHS). An Administrative Law Judge found the penalty could have been much worse. The facts are sobering. The message is clear.…