Government Claiming Contract Is Void Ab Initio by Contractor Knowingly Making False Statements
January 06, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan the federal government declare a contract “void ab initio” or void from the beginning? Yes, if the government can “prove that the contractor (a) obtained the contract by (b) knowingly (c) making a false statement.” MLB Transportation v. U.S., 2025 WL 2962897, *8 (Fed.Cl. 2025) (citation omitted).
Where a contractor “obtained [a] contract by knowingly falsely stating that it was a small business … [the] government contract [is] tainted from its inception by fraud [and] is void ab initio.” The general rule that “a Government contract tainted by fraud or wrong-doing is void ab initio … protects the integrity of the federal contracting process and safeguards the public from undetectable threats to the public fisc.” A contract found to be void ab initio has “no legal effect,” and is “[n]ull from the beginning, as from the first moment when a contract is entered into.”
MLB Transportation, supra (citations omitted).
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Ayushi Neogi Published in ADC Defense Comment on Arbitration in Evolving Plaintiff-Friendly Landscape
May 12, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel Ayushi Neogi has authored an article in the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada’s Defense Comment magazine examining the shifting landscape of arbitration following the Ending Forced Arbitration Act.
Titled “Compelling Arbitration in a Post-Ending Forced Arbitration Act, Plaintiff-Friendly Landscape,” the article analyzes how recent legislative changes are reshaping arbitration strategy, particularly as employees gain greater ability to bypass arbitration in certain claims. Neogi provides practical insight into how courts are responding and what this means for defense counsel navigating increasingly complex and plaintiff-friendly environments.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ball Janik LLP Elevates Construction Litigation Attorneys Keegan A. Berry and Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner
February 02, 2026 —
Ball Janik LLPOrlando, FL – January 28, 2026 –
Ball Janik LLP is pleased to announce the elevation of
Keegan A. Berry and
Nicholas B. Vargo to Partner, effective 2026. Both attorneys are dedicated to their clients and have provided significant contributions to the firm's Construction Defect and Litigation practice.
"Keegan and Nicholas exemplify the excellence and client-focused approach that define Ball Janik LLP," said James C. Prichard, Managing Partner of Ball Janik LLP. "Their elevation to Partner reflects not only their exceptional legal skills and dedication to our clients but also their commitment to advancing the firm's mission. We are proud to recognize their achievements and look forward to their continued leadership."
Berry is based in Ball Janik LLP's Orlando office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. Throughout his career, Berry has focused on complex litigation and resolving matters through arbitration, alternative dispute resolution, and trial, with extensive experience both prosecuting and defending construction claims on behalf of owners, contractors, and manufacturers. His practice also encompasses complex commercial and general litigation, including business torts, professional liability, products liability, and general liability.
"I'm honored to continue serving Florida's business and property owner communities as a partner at Ball Janik, leveraging my experience to deliver efficient, results-driven solutions in even the most complex construction disputes," said Berry.
Vargo is based in Ball Janik LLP's Tampa office and is a Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist in Construction Law. He focuses on Construction Litigation, representing residential and commercial property owners in construction defect litigation. Vargo has spent most of his career in construction defect law with Ball Janik and has been instrumental in growing Ball Janik's presence in Florida's west coast.
"Becoming a partner at Ball Janik is both a privilege and a responsibility, and I look forward to continuing to advocate fiercely for our clients while holding accountable those who attempt to evade their obligations," said Vargo.
About Ball Janik LLP
Ball Janik LLP is a Florida-based law firm offering construction defect, construction law, insurance recovery, and commercial litigation counsel, to its local and national clients. The firm was founded in 1982 and has expanded its capabilities, professionals, and geographic footprint. What started as a small firm focused on real property, land use, and litigation (known then as Ball Janik & Novack) has grown to a team of 50-plus attorneys and paralegals in 5 offices in Florida, with centuries of combined experience and capabilities. The firm has been recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers®, The Best Lawyers in America©, and Corporate International. Read more here: https://www.balljanik.com/.
Fort Lauderdale Team Secures Defense Verdict for Client in Premises Liability Lawsuit
December 30, 2025 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomFort Lauderdale, Fla. (October 27, 2025) - Fort Lauderdale Partner Paul Gamm and Associate Amber Dawson recently obtained a complete defense verdict for their client, a grocery store operator, in a premises liability case in Florida state court.
The accident in question occurred in December 2022, when two vehicles collided at an uncontrolled internal parking lot intersection at the grocery store property. The plaintiff refused to blame the other driver, a non-party at trial. The plaintiff alleged that the intersection should have been controlled with a stop sign because it lacked the appropriate sight distance for drivers to perceive threats from oncoming traffic.
The plaintiff filed suit against the client in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida. She claimed she suffered cervical and lumbar herniations, requiring one facet lumbar fusion and two outstanding surgeries.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Bad Faith Claim Survives Summary Judgment
June 08, 2026 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on the insured’s bad faith claim, but granted the motion on the insured’s claim for punitive damages. Serbian Orthodox Church v. Brotherhood Mut. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58234 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2026).
On February 1, 2023, the Church filed a claim for water damage with Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC). The claim was based on rain and wind that caused extensive water intrusion into the Sanctuary, damaging its plaster walls and ceilings and fresco paintings. The claim was assigned to Patrick Hurley. Hurley sent a letter discussing potential bars to coverage and requesting further information and documents from the Church.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Turnover Traps for Community Associations: Investigate First, Release Claims Later
April 14, 2026 —
Nicholas B. Vargo - Ball Janik LLPTurnover of a community association from developer control to owner control is a uniquely vulnerable moment. Developers are increasingly presenting Florida condominium and homeowners’ associations with “standard” settlement or release agreements at turnover, often being framed as routine steps to finalize the transition of control. In reality, these agreements can have sweeping consequences, including the release of construction-defect claims before the association has conducted any meaningful independent evaluation.
The developer has years of project knowledge and access to plans, subcontractors, and internal records. The newly elected board is just beginning to organize, obtain documents, and understand the property’s condition. Many defects, especially those involving roofing, waterproofing, windows, or structural components, are latent and not yet visible. Signing a release at this stage means the association is making a binding decision under conditions of uncertainty, without full information, to release all future potential claims.
Over the last few years, there has been a rise in reports of developers offering a packaged deal: they agree to complete certain repairs, often minor punch-list or cosmetic items, and to “forgive” an alleged financial deficit (often around $50,000) supposedly owed by the association from the developer-control period. In exchange, the association is asked to sign a broad release covering all claims, including known and unknown construction defects. To a new HOA board that received their community with limited operating and reserve funds, they are left with a difficult decision to either accept the developer’s offer or assess their owners to pay this alleged debt.
These agreements are occasionally presented through community management companies, which may describe them as “standard” or "routine.” Whether due to misunderstanding or influence from the developer, management companies can unintentionally reinforce the idea that signing is expected. Any recommendation provided to HOAs about whether to sign these releases could open community management to liability down the road. The best practice for both associations and community managers is to refer any agreements to be reviewed by general counsel for the association.
The following two case studies illustrate the real-world consequences:
Case Study One: A newly transitioned board relies on its management company to negotiate with the developer-builder to resolve irrigation issues, pond concerns, and signage deficiencies, along with forgiving an asserted financial shortfall. In exchange, the board signs a broad release covering all claims, including latent defects.
Within a year, several punch-list items remain incomplete, and more serious issues arise. When the association demands completion, the developer delays, prompting the association to seek advice on how to enforce the settlement agreement. The association hires counsel to hold the developer responsible for both the previously agreed-upon items and newly identified construction defects. However, when the association brings claims against the developer, the developer points to the release of all potential construction defects in the community. Thus, the only remaining remedy is limited to enforcement of the specific punch-list terms. The community, still relatively new, has no viable claims against the developer-builder for the construction defects. With warranties expired and the release, the association must fund repairs through special assessments, despite defects that would otherwise have been actionable.
Case Study Two: A community is presented with a similar agreement as above. The management company encourages execution, suggesting it is standard and even telling the board to “name your price.” The developer also pressures the newly elected board to sign.
Instead of signing, the board consults with their attorney. Counsel advises the board not to sign the release and recommends further investigation. Engineers are retained and identify early indicators of broader issues, including stucco cracking, water intrusion, and irrigation deficiencies. Based on this information, the association declines to sign the release. Subsequent evaluation reveals potentially significant construction-defect claims, allowing the community to pursue recovery that would have been lost under the proposed agreement.
These scenarios underscore a fundamental point: signing a release at turnover is not an administrative formality—it is a major legal decision. Board members act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their community, and their decisions can bind all current and future owners. At turnover, an association’s right is to investigate and pursue claims. Preserving that right until a full and independent evaluation is completed is not adversarial—it is responsible governance.
Accordingly, associations should retain independent evaluations of the property and consult qualified legal counsel before signing any “standard” agreements, especially ones involving a release of future claims.
Nicholas B. Vargo is a partner in Ball Janik LLP’s Construction Practice Group. He may be reached at nvargo@balljanik.com.
Chambers Global 2026 Recognizes Sheppard Practices and Attorneys
March 03, 2026 —
SheppardSheppard has been recognized by Chambers Global 2026 in the following practice areas:
- Privacy & Data Security in the United States
- Projects: Power & Renewables: Transactional in the United States
- Projects: Renewables & Alternative Energy in the United States
Additionally, the following Sheppard partners have been recognized by Chambers Global 2026:
- Justin Boose (Projects: Renewables & Alternative Energy – USA)
- Will Chen (Intellectual Property: International Firms – South Korea)
- David Chun (Intellectual Property – South Korea)
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sheppard
US Energy Dept. Withdraws Federal ‘Zero-Emissions Building’ Definition
December 22, 2025 —
Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Dept. of Energy has
withdrawn the Biden-era federal definition of a “zero-emissions building,” marking another step in the Trump administration’s rollback of climate-focused initiatives and creating uncertainty for states, cities and owners that had informally used the guidance in project planning.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-RecordMr. Gottlieb may be contacted at
gottliebb@enr.com
