United States, ex rel. Joseph Ibanez, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al.

The False Claims Act was carefully crafted by Congress to allow private whistleblowers, or relators, to assist the United States government in recovering monies fraudulently billed to the government. The Act allows for recovery of treble damages from any person who presents, or causes a third party to present, a false or fraudulent claim to the United States government, or who has created a false statement material to the submission of a false or fraudulent claim. Like other actions sounding in fraud, parties pleading FCA cases must “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The question presented, currently unanswered by the patchwork of conflicting and confusing standards in the circuit courts, is: Can a False Claims Act relator satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) by alleging facts from which a reasonable person would deem the inference that a false claim was submitted at least as compelling as any opposing inference?