Disclosing Fraud by Principals
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.17.16
In ALGESE 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2016), the Court of Federal Claims provided guidance on the terms “principal” and “criminally . . . charged” in the FAR responsibility certification when it enjoined the Navy from proceeding with an award to a company because the Navy should have found it non-responsible upon learning of the corruption and fraud of its parent corporation during a protest of a parallel contract before the GAO. Examining the structure of the company’s family of corporations and conduct, the CFC highlighted that essentially none of the related entities disclosed the many criminal investigations, charges, and convictions in SAM and FAPIIS because the family had “created a new subsidiary in which to dump its criminal liability problems."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.24.26
California Considering A Massive Expansion of Its Antitrust Laws
Legislative efforts to significantly expand California’s antitrust laws are working their way through the state legislature. The most comprehensive overhaul is Assembly Bill 1776 — the Competition and Opportunity in Markets for a Prosperous, Equitable and Transparent Economy (COMPETE) Act, introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, on March 23, 2026. AB 1776 is modeled closely after draft legislation recommended by the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) in December. AB 1776 would not only significantly expand potential liability for single-firm conduct and monopolization but would also explicitly decouple California antitrust analysis from certain federal standards. Companies doing business in California should pay close attention to AB 1776 because of its potentially dramatic impact, including increased exposure to antitrust litigation and increased compliance costs.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.23.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 03.23.26
