The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.05.17
In ABS Development Corp. (ASBCA Nov. 17, 2016), the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction certain contractor claims that had been “certified” by means of typewritten names in signature-font (rather than the acceptable handwritten or e-signatures) because a typewritten name “cannot be authenticated, and, therefore, is not a signature.” Because the CDA’s purpose is to bind contractors by means of a signed certificate that “cannot be easily disavowed by the purported author,” the Board held that typed signatures were jurisdictionally inadequate and could not be cured (via a substitute signature), a reminder to contractors that a critical element of litigating CDA claims is adherence to statutory requirements as well as the Board’s rules.
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
