Opinion ID: 2357566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Judgment and Settlement Fund

Text: INA points out that the District of Columbia has a separate appropriation for the payment of judgments and settlements. See D.C.Code §§ 2-402,-404 (2001). It argues that the existence of this fund satisfies the requirements of the ADA, thereby permitting District officials and opposing parties to enter settlement agreements without fear that the agreement will later be set aside for non-compliance with the ADA. Finally, it asserts that the Repayment Agreement was a partial settlement chargeable to this fund. We agree with much of what INA says, but not with its conclusion. Certainly a judgment finding the District liable for breach of contract could be paid out of this fund, and doing so would not violate the ADA. See Union Pacific, 52 Fed.Cl. at 733; see also Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States, 20 F.3d 1567, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1994) (federal judgment and settlement fund was intended to establish a central, government-wide judgment fund from which judicial tribunals administering or ordering judgments, awards, or settlements may order payments without being constrained by concerns of whether adequate funds existed at the agency level to satisfy the judgment). But this portion of INA's argument begs the question of whether the indemnification portion of the Repayment Agreement created an enforceable obligation. No court has ruled that it did, and there certainly is no judgment requiring the District to pay INA's costs, fees and expenses. Moreover, we are not convinced that the indemnification portion of the Repayment Agreement was a settlement in the relevant sense. [7] Certainly that agreement resolved the District's claim against the performance bond issued by INA. But the judgment and settlement fund exists to satisfy claims against the District. It stretches too far to construe the indemnification agreement as an anticipatory settlement of a claim that INA might have acquired against the District in the future. Most importantly, the District's liability remained open-ended. [8] The same policies that undergird the Anti-Deficiency Act counsel against allowing INA to bypass the ADA by collecting its unliquidated costs, fees and expenses from the judgment and settlement fund. [9]