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 | 4 min read | 10.30.26
Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.29.26
What University Licensors Should Learn From TexasLDPC v. Broadcom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.28.26
Debriefing to Dead Briefing: How to Avoid Dismissal by Identifying “Required” Debriefings
