False Statement Liability Involving Federal Grantees Curtailed Again
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.01.04
Musing that, if 18 U.S.C. 1001 were interpreted to prohibit any false statements to any private entity whose funds in part originated with the federal government, a person who lied about his address to get a local library card could be a federal felon, a divided 11th Circuit panel in U.S. v. Blankenship (Aug. 26, 2004) overturned the criminal convictions of the principal of a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) under 18 U.S.C. 1001 because the sham contracts are false certified payroll records that were used to obtain payment under a federally-funded state highway project were not statements made to federal agencies. The Eleventh Circuit's analysis, together with the D.C. Circuit's civil False Claims Act decision in U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp. (see C&M Bullet Point, Sept. 16) represents a significant cutback of federal authority to sanction contractors doing business with federal grantees.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.13.26
Supreme Court Confirms Contractual Loss of Bargain Without Repudiatory Breach
English law has long treated the choice between terminating for repudiatory breach and exercising a contractual termination right as consequential. Under the Financings[1] causation principle, a party exercising a contractual right for a non-repudiatory breach could recover losses accrued to the date of termination — but nothing more. Loss of bargain was out of reach unless the breach went to the root of the contract. A practical workaround, confirmed in Lombard,[2] was to designate the relevant obligation as a condition, elevating any breach to repudiatory status, but that device carries significant strategic risk if the termination is later found to have been wrongful.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.12.26
Developments in Canadian Investment Treaty Practice: New FIPA Between Canada and UAE in Force
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.11.26
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.26
