Confidentiality Agreement FAR Provision Does Not Permit Employee Theft
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.13.17
Crowell & Moring attorneys David Robbins and Trina Fairley Barlow published an article entitled “FAR Confidentiality Rule Doesn’t Authorize Employee Theft” that dispels common myths about the FAR’s confidentiality agreement provisions at 3.909 and the related contract clauses at FAR 52.203-18 and -19. Although purported whistleblowers are more commonly arguing they are entitled to take contractor documents in support of an enforcement proceeding, this article explains why such arguments are well beyond the scope of the regulation and suggests ways to respond if such a situation arises.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 06.24.26
On June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ( National Security Division (NSD) announced that it had issued a declination for Robert Bosch GmbH (Bosch) relating to potential violations of the Export Control Reform Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4819 (ECRA). Specifically, the DOJ declined to criminally prosecute Bosch’s violations of the Export Administration Regulations’ (EAR) Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), which apparently resulted from two Bosch subsidiaries’ export of products and software manufactured with equipment that was the direct product of U.S. software or technology to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and its “Entity List” affiliates, including Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd., Hong Kong (collectively, Huawei). The same day, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a parallel civil administrative settlement with Bosch.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.24.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.23.26
EPA Hands Over AI Data Center Regulation to States and Communities to Develop Best Practices
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.22.26
