The brief covers the proper interpretation of the “original source” requirement of the FCA’s public disclosure bar and argues that the district court improperly evaluated the meaning of “voluntarily provided,” explaining that a whistleblower who provides information to the government without being compelled has done so voluntarily.  The brief explains why the relator in this case, a quintessential insider with direct knowledge of the fraud, is exactly the kind of whistleblower the 1986 amendments were meant to encourage to come forward.

Download the Amicus Brief here.