Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Eleventh Circuit Refines Public Disclosure Bar Standards

Publications

January 20, 2015

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a relator's qui tam lawsuit under the FCA's public disclosure bar and, in doing so, concluded that the ACA's amendments to the public disclosure bar created grounds for dismissal for failure to state a claim, rather than for lack of jurisdiction. In U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., the relator alleged that various Florida-based clinics and health insurers violated the FCA through the provision of various services to patients as kickbacks designed to induce and influence the patients' healthcare decision-making. Defendants pointed to allegations in state court litigation and news media as publicly disclosing the allegations upon which the relator based his qui tam lawsuit, and the district court agreed.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, dismissal of the relator's lawsuit was appropriate because the lawsuit was based at least "in … part" upon the publicly disclosed information cited by defendants. The relator also did not qualify as an original source of the information in his complaint. Under the pre-ACA original source exception, the relator was not an original source because he offered nothing more than "background information that helps one understand or contextualize [the] public disclosure." And, under the post-ACA original source exception, the relator had not materially added to the public disclosures, which already were sufficient to give rise to an inference of wrongful conduct.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee reached a similar conclusion concerning similar allegations made by the same relator in U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. HealthSpring, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-01015 (M.D. Tenn.).

For more information, visit www.InsidetheFCA.com.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.