The Rounds | Ep. 28 | FCA News with Tejinder Singh

Why It Matters

The cases clarify limits on the DOJ’s ability to revive dismissed FCA suits and broaden the reach of FCA claims, compelling practitioners to draft more detailed pleadings and opening new avenues to challenge government‑related fraud.

Key Takeaways

• DOJ cannot revive dismissed FCA cases via Rule 60(b).
• Fifth Circuit rejects first-file bar when fraud schemes differ materially.
• Fourth Circuit lowers pleading threshold for scienter under FCA.
• Ninth Circuit allows FCA claims despite 340B program’s administrative remedies.
• Relators must detail scheme differences to avoid dismissal under first-file bar.

Summary

The latest episode of The Rounds examined a series of recent Federal False Claims Act (FCA) decisions, highlighting how courts across the country are shaping the scope of FCA enforcement. Topics ranged from the Justice Department’s attempt to resurrect a dismissed Harvard case, to nuanced rulings on the first‑file bar, pleading standards for scienter, and the applicability of the FCA to the 340B drug‑pricing program.

In the Harvard case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the DOJ’s Rule 60(b) motion, noting that a change in policy does not satisfy the narrow circumstances required to revive a dismissed claim. The Fifth Circuit, reviewing a Lockheed Martin procurement suit, held that the first‑file bar did not apply because the alleged fraud schemes were not sufficiently similar, emphasizing a granular comparison of conduct. Meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit reversed a dismissal in a Medicaid drug‑pricing case, describing the scienter pleading standard as low and affirming that Rule 9(b) knowledge can be pleaded generally. The Ninth Circuit, addressing a 340B dispute, concluded that FCA claims may proceed when the injury is to the government, rejecting the notion that the program’s administrative remedies preclude FCA liability.

Judges underscored key principles: Judge Ali Khan cited a Supreme Court precedent rejecting superficial attempts to revive cases; the Fifth Circuit’s opinion stressed the need for detailed factual distinctions between alleged schemes; the Fourth Circuit majority warned that plaintiffs need not possess full internal knowledge at the pleading stage; and the Ninth Circuit distinguished government‑harm claims from private contract actions, preserving FCA avenues for drug‑pricing violations.

These rulings signal that litigators must craft pleadings with precise factual differences to survive first‑file bar challenges, recognize the limited scope of the DOJ’s dismissal‑revival powers, and appreciate the broadened ability to pursue FCA actions against programs like 340B. The decisions collectively expand enforcement tools while demanding greater specificity in allegations.

Original Description

EPISODE 28 | March 2026 | Produced for the Qui Tam Section of the Federal Bar Association

Tejinder Singh, an advisory board member of the FBA's Qui Tam Section, discusses recent developments in False Claims Act law with R. Scott Oswald, the section's programming chair.

The cases and topics discussed in this episode are:

00:00 U.S. ex rel. Low v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (D.D.C.)

03:00 U.S. ex rel. Ferguson v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (5th Cir.)

06:23 U.S. ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC (4th Cir.)

08:32 U.S. ex rel. Adventist Health System of West v. AbbVie Inc. (9th Cir.)

Mr. Singh is a partner at Sparacino PLLC, and an appellate lawyer who represents FCA relators in forums including the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Oswald is managing principal of The Employment Law Group, P.C., and a frequent FCA litigator himself.

This episode of "The Rounds" was recorded over Zoom on March 19, 2026.

To join the Federal Bar Association, go to http://www.fedbar.org/membership/join