1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Disclosing Fraud by Principals

Disclosing Fraud by Principals

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.17.16

In ALGESE 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2016), the Court of Federal Claims provided guidance on the terms “principal” and “criminally . . . charged” in the FAR responsibility certification when it enjoined the Navy from proceeding with an award to a company because the Navy should have found it non-responsible upon learning of the corruption and fraud of its parent corporation during a protest of a parallel contract before the GAO. Examining the structure of the company’s family of corporations and conduct, the CFC highlighted that essentially none of the related entities disclosed the many criminal investigations, charges, and convictions in SAM and FAPIIS because the family had “created a new subsidiary in which to dump its criminal liability problems."

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights