1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries

Boards' CDA Jurisdiction Does Not Extend To Third-Party Beneficiaries

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.30.09

Reversing the ASBCA decision, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,793 (2008), the Federal Circuit holds in Winter v. FloorPro, Inc. (June 26, 2009), that the ASBCA does not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by third-party beneficiaries, because they are not "contractors" under the Contract Disputes Act. The Federal Circuit distinguishes its prior holding that the Court of Federal Claims does have jurisdiction to hear claims by third-party beneficiaries, observing that jurisdiction granted to the CFC under the Tucker Act is ";broader than the Board's jurisdiction under the CDA."

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24

California Office of Health Care Affordability Notice Requirement for Material Change Transactions Closing on or After April 1, 2024

Starting next week, on April 1st, health care entities in California closing “material change transactions” will be required to notify California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) and potentially undergo an extensive review process prior to closing. The new review process will impact a broad range of providers, payers, delivery systems, and pharmacy benefit managers with either a current California footprint or a plan to expand into the California market. While health care service plans in California are already subject to an extensive transaction approval process by the Department of Managed Health Care, other health care entities in California have not been required to file notices of transactions historically, and so the notice requirement will have a significant impact on how health care entities need to structure and close deals in California, and the timing on which closing is permitted to occur....