Judge Richard Seeborg’s ruling, which addresses a question of first impression, is a big blow for Oracle, which had invoked a forum-selection provision in its bylaws in moving to dismiss two derivative suits involving allegations that Oracle fraudulently bilked the government out of millions of dollars by overcharging for software and licenses.

If those allegations sound familiar, it’s because they’re the focus of a 2007 whistleblower suit against Oracle, which the government joined in July 2010. As we reported last year, qui tam relator Paul Frascella and his London Mead lawyers accuse Oracle of scheming to deceive the government about discounts it gave commercial customers for its products. (A hearing on Oracle’s motion to dismiss the government’s amended complaint is set for Jan. 14; Oracle is represented by Arnold & Porter in the False Claims Act case.)

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]