Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week, in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The U.S. waived its right to file a response to a U.S. Supreme Court petition in a False Claims Act case brought by whistleblower Brutus Trading. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the government's waiver, filed Feb. 2, that it won't respond to the petition "unless requested to do so by the Court" (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 26 declined to dismiss a False Claims Act suit from a whistleblower that alleges her employer misclassified footwear to avoid tariffs. Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger said the fact none of the defendants served as the importer of record for the allegedly undervalued footwear imports is irrelevant for purposes of establishing liability under the FCA (United States ex rel. Devin Taylor v. GMI USA Corp., S.D.N.Y. # 16-7216).
A whistleblower in a False Claims Act challenge, Brutus Trading, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its case so the court can clear up its own 2023 decision that found the government can voluntarily dismiss a qui tam FCA case brought by a whistleblower after not initially intervening in the case, and that the dismissal would be carried out under Rule 41(a) (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).