Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

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

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Richard Arnholt and Kaitlin Harvie Author Article on Implied-Certification Theory

Westlaw Journal Government Contracts


January 11, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys Richard Arnholt and Kaitlin Harvie authored an article for Thomson Reuters' Westlaw Journals 2015 U.S. Supreme Court Report, discussing the implied-certification theory at issue in Triple Canopy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Badr, a case involving allegedly false claims submitted by a defense contractor for security services in Iraq. In the article, Richard and Kaitlin explore the ambiguity of the implied-certification theory and how the pending decision on the Triple Canopy petition for certiorari may help clarify the theory's viability and scope, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in the Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar case, which addresses the same issues in the healthcare context. In Triple Canopy, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the implied-certification theory, relying on "common sense" and ignoring the express terms of the underlying contract to conclude that false presentment claims had been adequately pleaded against the contractor, even though payment was not conditioned on the provision allegedly violated. To complicate matters, other courts have rejected the theory, such as the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Sanford-Brown Ltd.

The full article, "Implied Certification in the Crosshairs: 7th Circuit Ruling Increases Likelihood of Supreme Court Review of False Claims Act Case," was published January 4, 2016, in Westlaw Journal Government Contracts and is available in the PDF below. Additionally, the article was published in more than 30 legal publications distributed by the publisher.

Download Document - Westlaw Journal Government Contracts (January 4, 2016)

Related Professionals

Related Services


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.