1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries

Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.30.09

Reversing the ASBCA decision, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,793 (2008), the Federal Circuit holds in Winter v. FloorPro, Inc. (June 26, 2009), that the ASBCA does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by third-party beneficiaries, because they are not "contractors" under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit distinguishes its prior holding that the Court of Federal Claims does have jurisdiction to hear claims by third-party beneficiaries, observing that jurisdiction granted to the CFC under the Tucker Act is ";broader than the Board's jurisdiction under the CDA."

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26

Lending Against Digital Assets: Five Key Takeaways for Lenders After a Year of Regulatory and UCC Change

Over the past 18 months, the federal banking agencies have clarified supervisory expectations for banks’ crypto-asset activities, and several of the largest U.S. banks have announced programs accepting Bitcoin and Ether as loan collateral. Separately, on June 3, 2026, New York’s enactment of the 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code took effect, changing the rules governing the perfection of a security interest in digital asset collateral in New York, the jurisdiction whose law governs most institutional credit documentation. Together, these developments may create significant opportunities for lenders navigating the complexities to comply with the newly enacted statutes. This alert surveys the current landscape, from regulatory permissibility and perfection through custody, structuring, and compliance, for institutions active in this market or considering entering it....