US Ex Rel. Ervin and Assoc. v. Hamilton SEC.
370 F. Supp. 2d 18 | District Court, District of Columbia | 2005
Holding Summary
Court found Hamilton liable for False Claims Act violations in the North and Central note sale by using wrong optimization model, causing $1.5 million in damages to HUD.
Hamilton reported results $1,511,244.00 less than optimal because revenue model was used instead of unpaid principal balance model.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.
Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.
A subcontractor's equipment failed to meet contract specifications; the trial court properly found breach of contract and awarded damages for cover costs under UCC § 2-207 battle of the forms doctrine.