Who Knew? Limitations Defense Kept in Play Against U.S.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.23.12
In Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims found there to be triable issues of fact with regard to the contractor's statute of limitations defense as to when the government's claim accrued, i.e., when the government "knew or should have known" of alleged CAS 418 noncompliance. This case follows a series of similar recent cases at the CFC and the ASBCA and raises the issue of who in the government needs to have notice of a claim for it to accrue -- a contracting officer or "other responsible actors" such as DCAA auditors -- a question the court declined to resolve "[a]t this early juncture" in the proceedings.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 06.16.26
What United States v. Bankman-Fried Means for Health Care Fraud Defense
On the surface, United States v. Bankman-Fried is a case about the collapse of a cryptocurrency exchange. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s recent opinion — affirming Samuel Bankman-Fried’s conviction on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy — carries important lessons that extend well beyond the world of digital assets.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
