Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How does Jordana Nelson's prior experience as a general counsel inform her work with firm clients? Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

The M&A Advisor Winner 2017The M&A Advisor announced the winners of the 16th Annual M&A Advisor Awards on Monday, November 13 at the 2017 M&A Advisor Awards. Bass, Berry & Sims was named a winner in the two categories related to the following deals:

M&A Deal of the Year (from $1B-$5B) – Acquisition of CLARCOR Inc. by Parker Hannifin Corporation

Corporate/Strategic Deal of the Year (over $1B) – Acquisition of BNC Bancorp by Pinnacle Financial Partners

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

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

FCA Deeper Dive: Meeting the FCA's Intent Requirement

Firm Publication

Publications

March 23, 2016

The FCA continues to be the federal government's primary civil enforcement tool for investigating allegations that healthcare providers or government contractors defrauded the federal government. In the coming weeks, we will take a closer look at recent legal developments involving the FCA. This week, we examine the requirement that a relator plead and prove that a defendant acted with the requisite level of knowledge to establish an FCA claim and evaluate how courts have evaluated this issue in recent cases.

In U.S. ex rel. Saldivar v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., 2015 WL 7293156 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 30, 2015), the district court granted Fresenius's motion for summary judgment, holding that no reasonable jury could find that Fresenius acted "knowingly." The relator alleged that Fresenius violated the FCA by impermissibly billing Medicare for overfill in medication vials. The district court explained—in a 108-page opinion—that the relator could not prove that Fresenius knew its billing for overfills was impermissible or that it acted with deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard as to whether such billing was permissible. The district court focused on whether Fresenius had actual knowledge that it should not seek Medicare reimbursement for overfills. Key to this analysis were the facts that: (1) Fresenius relied on counsel in determining whether to bill Medicare and the law was silent on this issue during the relevant time period; (2) Fresenius and its counsel believed that many companies had billed for overfills and that the government knowingly reimbursed those companies for years; (3) Fresenius was very serious in its efforts to comply with Medicare rules and regulations; and (4) Fresenius had previously disclosed its overfill billing to the government, but was never warned that its actions were improper.

Inside the FCA blog

 

To continue reading the content in this article on the firm's Inside the FCA blog, please click here to view the post.

Bass, Berry & Sims' Inside the FCA blog features news, commentary and thought leadership covering FCA, healthcare fraud and procurement fraud.

 

 


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.