1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Claim Accrues Before an Impasse

Claim Accrues Before an Impasse

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.28.11

In Sys. Dev. Corp v. McHugh (Fed. Cir., Sept. 26, 2011), the Federal Circuit rebuffed a contractor’s attempt to save its claim for equitable adjustment from the six-year statute of limitation by arguing that, because it was combined with a termination proposal, the claim did not accrue until they had reached an impasse on the termination.  This puts contractors at risk for losing claims that they might, for business or other reasons, initially decide not to pursue but might later want to advance, e.g., to combat a loss ratio application in a termination setting.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....