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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
