Author: Mike Rowe

Mike Rowe

Mike has substantial experience in all stages of fast-moving internal investigations in various industries including oil and gas, banking, publishing, and technology. Mike also has significant experience counseling individuals and corporations of all sizes in their response to grand jury and SEC subpoenas. In civil matters, Mike has represented numerous clients in cases focusing on civil and financial fraud.

View Full Bio on Dorsey

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal For CVS Caremark Under Public Disclosure Bar

Mike Rowe

The FCA’s public disclosure bar precludes liability when a relator’s allegations have been publicly disclosed in a list of statutorily enumerated sources.  Last week, the First Circuit added to the growing jurisprudence both interpreting the bar and an exception to the bar:  the original source exception. In United States ex rel. Winkelman v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 15-1991 (June 30, 2016), the relators filed suit...

Supreme Court Upholds Implied Certification Theory of Liability; Imposes Limitations on its Reach

Mike Rowe

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court today charted a middle course between competing interpretations of the scope of False Claims Act.  Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, Case No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016).  The Court upheld the viability of the so-called “implied-certification” theory under the FCA, but simultaneously clarified the contours of the theory and imposed significant limitations on its...

Sixth Circuit Joins Sister Circuits In Using Arm-Of-The-State Analysis To Define “Person” Under The False Claims Act

Mike Rowe

The FCA imposes liability on “any person” that makes a false statement in violation of the Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1).  Although the Act itself does not define “person,” the Supreme Court has said only that a person cannot include a state or state agency.   See Vermont Agnecy of Natural Resources v. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 784-85, 788 (2000) (observing that § 3733(l)(4) defines person...

In KBR v. Carter, Supreme Court Clarifies the First-To-File Doctrine and the Statute of Limitations Under the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act

Mike Rowe

Late last month, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous, two-part decision that clarified the meaning of the term “offense” as used in the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WSLA”), and the term “pending” as used in the first-to-file doctrine.  The Court held that (i) the suspension of the statute of limitations under the WSLA applies only to criminal offenses; and (ii) a qui tam suit...

First Circuit Takes “Broad View” of Falsity for Pleading Purposes

Mike Rowe

In a break with other Circuits, the First Circuit recently reaffirmed its broad definition of a “false statement’ under the False Claims Act.  United States ex rel. Escobar v. Universal Health Services, Inc., No. 14-1423 (1st Cir. Mar. 17, 2015).  Notably, the court continues to take a “broad view of what may constitute a false or fraudulent statement to avoid ‘foreclosing FCA liability in situations...