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 >

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

Westlaw Journal Government Contracts

Publications

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

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.