Clear as Day: ASBCA Finds No Ambiguity in Contract
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.15.17
In Appeal of Family Entertainment Services, the Board denied a contractor’s claim that the government improperly reduced the amount that it paid under a military base maintenance contract. The contractor claimed, in part, that the parties’ contract was ambiguous as to the definition of the word “days” during the period of performance (PoP), and argued that the Board should read the term “days” to mean “work days” rather than “calendar days.” The Board rejected the contractor’s argument, noting that the contract incorporated FAR 52.212-4, which incorporates the FAR 2.101 definition defining “day” as “unless otherwise specified, a calendar day.” The Board cited long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that a differing opinion of contract terms alone does not give rise to an ambiguity, a reminder to contractors to carefully scrutinize the performance requirements in their contracts, including the PoP and any terms defined by the FAR.
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
