1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Breach Of Good Faith Doesn't Require Malice

Breach Of Good Faith Doesn't Require Malice

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.03.06

The Court of Federal Claims in the unusual factual situation of Agredano v. U.S. (Mar. 27, 2006) took the opportunity to reinforce the growing body of decisional law that a party does not have to show subjective malice or intent to injure by a government employee to be able to recover for breach of good faith and fair dealing duties. In this case, Mexican nationals who bought a car seized by the Customs Service at a forfeiture sale "as is" and were then locked up for a year in Mexico when it was discovered at a traffic checkpoint that the upholstery was stuffed with marijuana stated a valid claim for breach of good faith duties to search the car and make sure it was "legal" before offering it for sale.

Insights

Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25

CARB Proposes Regulations Implementing California GHG Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk Reporting Laws

After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations....

View All Insights