Little Dab of Fraud Will Do Ya (In)
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.19.07
In an unusual remand from the en banc court back to the panel for a "do over," the Federal Circuit in Long Island Savings Bank, FSB v. U.S. (Sept. 13, 2007) reversed a $435 million verdict for the bank in this Winstar-type case because the bank, in its application materials, did not disclose that its CEO was violating federal banking regulations by having an interest in the law firm to which the bank sent all its mortgage business, with this common-law fraud making the contract void ab initio. Still unexplained, however, is why the panel felt obliged then to discuss whether the fraud was a prior material breach to the government's when the contract was void and its passing reference that there might be "other theories of recovery."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
