Source: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/news/2019/01/~/link.aspx?_id=7BAABC31870A575784C398F2CBCB000D&_z=z
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:25:45+00:00

Document:
Murad Hussain is a trial and investigations attorney who represents clients in government enforcement matters and complex civil litigation. His practice focuses on defending life sciences innovators, healthcare providers, procurement contractors, and other clients facing allegations of False Claims Act (FCA) violations, criminal fraud, and Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) non-compliance. He also serves on the firm's Pro Bono Committee and regularly represents clients pro bono in criminal proceedings, constitutional litigation, and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits.
Mr. Hussain has significant experience litigating First Amendment questions. Most recently, he defended Dr. Salomon Melgen at trial against claims of bribing US Senator Robert Menendez, and successfully argued for acquitting both men of all charges involving First Amendment-protected political contributions – a ruling that, in the New York Times' words, "blew a hole" in the prosecution's case and led to the dismissal of all remaining charges.
Mr. Hussain served as a law clerk to the Honorable Ellen Segal Huvelle of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Various companies and individuals, in criminal grand jury, civil, and administrative investigations concerning the False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, Foreign Agents Registration Act, and public integrity laws.
Pharmaceutical innovators, in winning dismissals of two False Claims Act qui tam suits concerning promotional activities, U.S. ex rel. JKJ Partnership 2011, LLP v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., et al., 315 F. Supp. 3d 817 (D.N.J. 2018); U.S. ex rel. Dickson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al., 332 F. Supp. 3d 927 (D.N.J. 2017); and in defending against related state attorney general consumer protection actions.
Naval contractors, in defending against the federal government's False Claims Act suit, arguing for the FCA's non-extraterritoriality, and securing a no-fault dismissal. U.S. ex rel. Rudolph v. Inchcape Shipping Services Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 1:10-CV-1109 (D.D.C. June 11, 2018).
Campaign contributor, in securing a mistrial after a 10-week jury trial on bribery and related criminal charges, where the jury deadlocked 10-2 for acquittal, and in successfully arguing for Rule 29 acquittal on all counts based on political contributions, leading to the dismissal of all remaining charges. U.S. v. Menendez, et al., 291 F. Supp. 3d 606, 623-35 (D.N.J. 2018).
Dermatologic surgeon, in winning a complete acquittal after a 5-week federal criminal jury trial on charges of healthcare fraud and aggravated identity theft. U.S. v. Bajoghli, No. 1:14-CR-278 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2015).
Federal procurement contractor, in winning dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam suit alleging violations of the Trade Agreements Act. U.S. ex rel. Berkowitz v. Automation Aids, et al., No. 13-CV-8185, 2017 WL 1036575 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2017), aff'd, 896 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2018).
Radiation oncology practice, in winning dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam suit alleging violations of Medicare requirements for supervision of medical procedures. U.S. ex rel. Parker v. Space Coast Medical Associates, L.L.P, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (M.D. Fla. 2015).
Hospital management company, in federal investigations, proceedings before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, and individual False Claims Act qui tam suits alleging medically unnecessary procedures and violations of the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute. See In re Health Management Associates, Inc. Qui Tam Litigation, MDL Nos. 2442 & 2524; U.S. ex rel. Williams v. HMA, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-CV-130 (M.D. Ga. June 22, 2015) (dismissing claims against clients); U.S. ex rel. France v. HMA, Inc., et al., No. 8:13-CV-1264 (M.D. Fla. May 27, 2015) (dismissing case); U.S. ex rel. Dennis v. HMA, Inc., et al., No. 3:09-CV-00484, 2013 WL 146048 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 14, 2013) (dismissing case).
Media and entertainment companies, in bringing copyright infringement litigation and related appeal concerning unauthorized Internet streaming of broadcast programming.
Defense contractor, in obtaining dismissal of data breach class action lawsuits involving theft of data tape containing health care records.
Internet technology innovator, in federal and state litigation based on allegations of regulatory violations.
Pharmaceutical innovator, in an antitrust class action based on allegations of sham patent infringement litigation.
Music publishing company, in copyright litigation over the use of sound recordings and compositions on social networking websites.
Internet search engine, in defending against a copyright suit of first impression brought by a major news organization.
Defended indigent defendants at trial and in pretrial proceedings against allegations of homicide and other violent crime in District of Columbia Superior Court.
Represented an Islamic society in bringing suit under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging a discriminatory denial of a utilities permit; the permit was later granted pursuant to pretrial settlement. Islamic Society of Culpeper v. County of Culpeper, No. 3:17-CV-019 (W.D. Va. May 16, 2017).
Represented a grand jury witness before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, including oral argument, to challenge the prosecution's power to forcibly seize a non-suspect's DNA sample. In re Grand Jury Witness G.B., 139 A.3d 885 (D.C. 2016).
Represented an individual who converted to Islam in employment discrimination litigation under Title VII, and negotiated a confidential settlement. Cochran v. Tax Analysts, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-1608 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2015).
Represented persons born in American Samoa in federal pretrial litigation and appeal seeking recognition of their birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Represented a former Federal Aviation Administration employee in disability discrimination litigation under the Rehabilitation Act, and negotiated a favorable pretrial settlement. Woodruff v. LaHood, No. 01-CV-1964 (D.D.C. June 19, 2012).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.