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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
