Court Tackles Hubzone Issues In Two Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.12.05
In Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. U.S. (Mar. 4, 2005), the Court of Federal Claims, after finding it has jurisdiction to review a SBA protest decision of a bidder's HUBZone qualification, decided that the SBA had appropriately found the bidder qualified because its "principal office" (which was in a HUBZone) was different from its headquarters (which was not). In Manson Construction Co. v. U.S. (Mar. 14, 2005), the court validated award to the second-low bidder which won because of application of the HUBZone preference, while also upholding the agency's revision of its internal estimate that brought the contractor within the "zone" of permissible cost.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.28.24
UK Government Seeks to Loosen Third Party Litigation Funding Regulation
On 19 March 2024, the Government followed through on a promise from the Ministry of Justice to introduce draft legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28. The effect of this ruling was discussed in our prior alert and follow on commentary discussing its effect on group competition litigation and initial government reform proposals. Should the bill pass, agreements to provide third party funding to litigation or advocacy services in England will no longer be required to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) to be enforceable.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24
Client Alert | 11 min read | 03.26.24
Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.21.24
Federal District Court Rules Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional