1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim

The Pen is Mightier: Typewritten Signature Invalidates CDA Claim

Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.05.17

In ABS Development Corp. (ASBCA Nov. 17, 2016), the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction certain contractor claims that had been “certified” by means of typewritten names in signature-font (rather than the acceptable handwritten or e-signatures) because a typewritten name “cannot be authenticated, and, therefore, is not a signature.” Because the CDA’s purpose is to bind contractors by means of a signed certificate that “cannot be easily disavowed by the purported author,” the Board held that typed signatures were jurisdictionally inadequate and could not be cured (via a substitute signature), a reminder to contractors that a critical element of litigating CDA claims is adherence to statutory requirements as well as the Board’s rules.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.14.26

PFAS Reporting Gets Real in 2026

State regulation of PFAS-containing products will ramp up significantly in 2026. Most notably, companies will have to comply with Minnesota’s sweeping new product-reporting requirements.  As we explain below, Minnesota’s requirements cast a wide net, capturing companies that may not sell products directly into the state. This and other features of the state’s reporting program are likely to present significant compliance challenges for a wide range of businesses....