Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Email Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Aerojet Rocketdyne received another blow last week in its long running battle to end a 2015 False Claims Act suit alleging it lied about its compliance with cybersecurity requirements in order to win several federal contracts. In United States ex rel. Brian Markus v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., the relator, Aerojet’s former senior director of cybersecurity, alleged that the company entered into several Department of Defense and NASA contracts while knowingly misrepresenting its compliance with cybersecurity requirements. The relator raised two separate legal theories—implied false certification and fraud in the inducement—based on the company’s alleged failure to fully disclose the extent of its noncompliance with cybersecurity controls required by DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, and NASA FARS 1852.204-76, Security Requirement for Unclassified Information Technology Resources. In 2019, the company’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the relator failed to demonstrate the cybersecurity requirements at issue were material was denied. 



Cyber Compliance on Trial: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Aerojet FCA Case

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Aerojet Rocketdyne received another blow last week in its long running battle to end a 2015 False Claims Act suit alleging it lied about its compliance with cybersecurity requirements in order to win several federal contracts. In United States ex rel. Brian Markus v. Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., the relator, Aerojet’s former senior director of cybersecurity, alleged that the company entered into several Department of Defense and NASA contracts while knowingly misrepresenting its compliance with cybersecurity requirements. The relator raised two separate legal theories—implied false certification and fraud in the inducement—based on the company’s alleged failure to fully disclose the extent of its noncompliance with cybersecurity controls required by DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, and NASA FARS 1852.204-76, Security Requirement for Unclassified Information Technology Resources. In 2019, the company’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the relator failed to demonstrate the cybersecurity requirements at issue were material was denied. Read the <a href="https://govcon.mofo.com/topics/220208-cyber-compliance-on-trial-court.html" target="_blank">full blog post</a>.

Cyber Compliance on Trial: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Aerojet FCA Case