Search for: "Tams Corp" Results 1 - 20 of 468
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2012, 2:43 pm by Dan Hargrove
Department of Justice against Anadarko Corp. settled yesterday. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 2:53 am
Stryker Corp and Physiotherapy Associates have agreed to pay $16 million to settle qui tam allegations on submitting false claims to Medicare and other Federal health programs, according to the Department of Justice. [read post]
11 May 2010, 3:56 am by Ben Vernia
Judge Robert Jonker granted a motion by Stryker Corp. to dismiss a declined qui tam complaint because of insufficient particularity, under Fed. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 11:37 am by Ed Wallis
The New York Times on June 13, 2011 editorializes about the Supreme Court case of Schindler Elevator Corp. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 9:16 am by admin
On April 2, 2010, a False Claims Act qui tam action against Oracle Corp. and Oracle USA, Inc. was unsealed in the U.S. [read post]
2 May 2011, 9:51 pm by Ben Vernia
According to a May 2 article published on bloomberg.com, the Department of Justice has intervened in a qui tam suit against the for-profit college company, Education Management Corp. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 10:59 am
  Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 8:33 am by admin
   One of the defendants, Brazos Higher Education Service Corp., settled the action last week. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 12:52 pm
But one wrinkle is that Greenlight has taken a short position on the stock of BLX’s parent company, Allied Capital Corp., essentially betting that the value of the stock will fall, it was reported on the False Claims Act/Qui Tam Web site. [read post]
10 Aug 2013, 8:01 pm by Ben Vernia
On August 9, the Department of Justice intervened in a qui tam lawsuit filed by three whistleblowers against the long-term care pharmacy company PharMerica Corp. for dispensing controlled substances and submitting claims to Medicare without valid prescriptions. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 9:52 pm by Ben Vernia
The Federal Circuit declined to address the arguments of an amicus, Ciba Vision Corp., that the patent qui tam violated the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution, because the issue had not been briefed or argued by the parties in the District Court. [read post]