Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. United Technologies Corp., 985 F.2d 1148, 1154 (2d Cir.1993) (stating “[b]e-cause the qui tam relator: (1) funds the prosecution of the FCA suit, (2) will receive a private share in the government’s recovery only upon prevailing, and (3) may be liable for costs if the suit is frivolous, the relator’s personal stake in the case is sufficiently ensured.”); United States Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. ex rel. Givler v. Smith, 775 F.Supp. 172, 180 (E.D.Pa.1991) (acknowledging that a relator’s personal interest in the outcome in the litigation, the relator is considered to have “a sufficient stake to ensure the genuine adverseness of the litigation.”) (citing Flast, 392 U.S. at 99); United States ex rel. Stillwell v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 714 F.Supp. 1084, 1097-99 (C.D.Cal.1989) (<HOLDING>). The second rationale courts apply is that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a reasonable probability is one that in the judgment of the reviewing court is  sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding citation omitted (B) recognizing that the mere plausibility of a different outcome is not sufficient to justify reversal (C) holding statutory violation sufficient cause (D) recognizing that the statutory bounty is sufficient to give the relator a personal stake in the outcome (E) holding that an employer does not have thirdparty standing to challenge a labor statute on its employees behalf simply because the employees probably would not be motivated to assert their own interests because they lack a sufficient individual economic stake in the outcome
Output (English): recognizing that the mere plausibility of a different outcome is not sufficient to justify reversal