Skip to main content

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Kousisis v. United States

Issues

Does a private contractor cause “harm” as required for mail or wire fraud when it fraudulently misrepresents to the government that it hired a socially disadvantaged business as promised?

This case asks the Court to determine whether a private contractor’s fraudulent misrepresentation to a government agency regarding the contractor’s subcontracting duties causes harm sufficient for a conviction of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Kousisis argues that the fraudulent-inducement theory that formed the basis for his conviction expands the notion of a property interest beyond the language of § 1343. Kousisis claims that expansion would convert all purposeful breaches of contract into federal crimes with harsh sentences, increasing the size of the federal prison population. The United States argues that the fraudulent-inducement theory fits within the statute and the Court’s precedent. In any event, the United States claims that the government agency overspent on the project because of Kousisis’s misrepresentations, and the government has an interest in protecting against such harms.  The United States asserts that overcriminalization is not an issue, and that contractors should not escape prosecution for misrepresentations to obtain government contracts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”

The federal Department of Transportation (“DOT”) funds infrastructure projects overseen by state agencies throughout the country. United States v. Kousisis at 233. DOT also operates a program to increase the participation of businesses run by the socially and economically disadvantaged—called “Disadvantaged Business Enterprises” (“DBEs”)—in federally funded projects.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC

Issues

Does a trademark licensee retain any rights under a licensing agreement following the debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of the agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code?

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether a debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a trademark licensing agreement terminates the licensee’s rights under the agreement. Mission Product Holdings Inc. argues against termination, claiming that no such termination would occur from a breach of contract outside of the bankruptcy context, and that, in any case, there is a statutory exception that protects a licensee’s rights to use intellectual property post-rejection. Tempnology, LLC counters that rejection limits the licensee to the sole remedy of seeking monetary damages, and that the statutory exception for intellectual property does not contemplate trademarks as intellectual property. The outcome of this case will clarify the effect of rejection on contractual rights and whether trademarks are distinguishable from other types of intellectual property under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a license agreement—which “constitutes a breach of such contract,” 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)—terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law.

Respondent Tempnology, LLC (“Tempnology”) designs and manufactures accessories—such as towels, socks, and headbands—that remain cool while a user exercises. Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC, n/k/a Old Cold LLC at 3. In connection with these products, Tempnology owns a significant amount of intellectual property.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to BREACH OF CONTRACT