7 C.F.R. § 1400.6

Joint and several liability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any legal entity, including qualified pass-through entities, and any member of a legal entity determined to have knowingly participated in a scheme or device, or other equally serious actions to evade the payment limitation provisions in this part, or that has the purpose of evading the provisions of this part, will be jointly and severally liable for any amounts determined to be payable as the result of the scheme or device, or other examples of equally serious actions mentioned in this section or in § 1400.5, including amounts necessary to recover the payments.

(b) Any person or legal entity that cooperates in the enforcement of the payment limitation and payment eligibility provisions of this part may be partially or fully released from liability, as determined by the Executive Vice President, CCC.

(c) The provisions of this section will be applicable in addition to any liability that arises under a criminal or civil statute.

[73 FR 79273, Dec. 29, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 899, Jan. 7, 2010; 85 FR 52038, Aug. 24, 2020; 91 FR 32885, June 2, 2026]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2005 · leading case: Jason Mages v. Ann Veneman, 431 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jason Mages v. Ann Veneman, 431 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “First, the USDA concluded RODI had an interest in Mages’s crops because of the crop agreement and the nondisclosure of the interest violated the commensurate share rule under 7 C.F.R. § 1400.6 . Second, the USDA seems to have concluded in the alternative Mages had an interest in…”

Bateman Co. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 123 F. Supp. 2d 625 (M.D. Ga. 2000). “On the application forms, there are spaces where those interest percentages must be listed in order to determine eligibility pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1400.6 4 . There are limitations on payments that may be received by each, separate entity.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.