New Solicitor General invitation briefs, part I
On May 19, the Solicitor General’s office filed three amicus briefs in response to the Court’s call for the views of the United States (a “CVSG”) in those cases.  Details follow the jump.  We will post later today on four more briefs the Solicitor General filed over the last few days.
In Chase Bank USA v. McCoy (09-329), the Solicitor General recommends that the Court grant certiorari, vacate the decision below, and remand in light of the Federal Reserve Board’s interpretation of the regulation in question.
- Issue: When a creditor increases the periodic rate on a credit card account in response to a cardholder default, pursuant to a default rate term that was disclosed in the contract governing the account, does Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.9(c), require the creditor to provide the cardholder with a change-in-terms notice even though the contractual terms governing the account have not changed?
- All of the briefs are available on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page, here.
In Ortho Biotech Products v. United States ex rel. Duxbury (09-654), the Solicitor General recommends that the Court deny the petition.
- Issues: (1) Whether a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act that repeats publicly disclosed allegations from prior litigation, when the FCA relator did not provide the government with information on the suit’s allegations before the public disclosure; and (2) whether an FCA relator, alleging that the defendant induced a third party to submit false or fraudulent claims, can satisfy Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without identifying a single false or fraudulent claim, but merely by alleging facts sufficient “to strengthen the inference of fraud beyond possibility.â€
- All of the briefs are available on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page, here.
In Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders (09-525), the Solicitor General recommends that the Court deny the petition.
- Issues: (1) Whether a service provider can be held primarily liable in a private securities-fraud action for “help[ing]” or “participating in” another company’s misstatements; and (2) whether a service provider can be held primarily liable in a private securities-fraud action for statements that were not directly and contemporaneously attributed to the service provider.
- All the briefs are on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page, here.
All cases from this Term in which the Court has called for the views of the Solicitor General are listed, with their status, in this index on SCOTUSwiki.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY