No Prime Liability = No Pass-Through
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 05.06.08
The Court of Federal Claims in Harper/Nielsen Dillingham, Builders v. U.S. (Apr. 29, 2008) denied a contractor's suit against the government in which it sought to pass through subcontractor claims for cost increases caused by government delays. The court acknowledged that the "Severin doctrine" allows such pass-through claims when the prime contractor is potentially liable to its subcontractor for the damages, but here found the prime could not be liable because the subcontract included an "iron-bound bar" against such liability due to a "no damage for delay" clause.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.09.26
Is Stock-a-palooza Over? Supreme Court allows SEC to Pursue Disgorgement
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can continue to pursue disgorgement as an equitable remedy in securities fraud cases without showing pecuniary loss by investors. The Court’s ruling in Sripetch v. SEC resolves a split between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the SEC must demonstrate pecuniary loss, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits, which declined to require such a showing.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.09.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 06.09.26
Client Alert | 11 min read | 06.08.26
