This decision holds that a complaint alleging a false implied certification violation of the California False Claims Act must be pleaded with particularity. But, it also holds that the plaintiff satisfied that standard in this case in which plaintiff claimed that remarketing agents had breached their contracts with local agencies in setting the interest rates on local agencies’ variable rate demand obligations. The remarketing agents were contractually bound to set the interest rate at the lowest rate that would allow sale of the bonds at par. But plaintiff alleged that the defendants had instead disregarded the bonds’ individual characteristics and set rates for them in generalized groupings. The complaint alleged three bases for that claim: plaintiff’a analysis of sample bond pricing changes contrasted with differing bond characteristics, lack of change in interest rate in response to improved creditworthiness of particular bond issuances, and information gained from five anonymous employees. While challenged by defendants, this information was sufficient to satisfy the particularity in pleading requirement and to reasonably inform the defendants of the charges against them.