1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Failure to Comply with Section L Instructions Invalidates Award

Failure to Comply with Section L Instructions Invalidates Award

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.13.12

In The Emergence Group (Feb. 29, 2012), the protestor, represented by Crowell & Moring, achieved an exception to the general rule that an agency is not required to evaluate offerors for compliance with RFP submission (Section L) requirements. In this case, the evaluation criteria (Section M) stated that compliance with Section L was mandatory, and the protest was sustained because the agency allowed offerors failing to submit the minimum number of past performance references per Section L to receive top evaluation marks.


Insights

Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.26.24

Banks and Financial Service Providers Take Note: EU Law on Greenwashing and Social-Washing Is Changing – And It Is Likely Going to Have a Wide Impact

The amount of litigation regarding environmental and climate change issues is, perhaps unsurprisingly, growing worldwide.[1] A significant portion of that litigation relates to so-called ‘greenwashing’, ‘climate-washing’ or ‘social-washing’ disputes. In other words, legal cases where people or organisations (often NGOs and consumer groups) accuse companies, banks, financial institutions or others, of making untrue statements. They argue these companies or financial institutions are pretending their products, services or operations are more environmentally-friendly, sustainable, or ethically ‘good’ for society – than is really the case. Perhaps more interestingly, of all the litigation in the environmental and climate change space – complainants bringing greenwashing and social washing cases have, according to some of these reports, statistically the most chance of winning. So, in a nutshell, not only is greenwashing and social washing litigation on the rise, companies and financial institutions are most likely to lose cases in this area....