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 | 2 min read | 03.23.26
On March 13, a Massachusetts federal district court temporarily blocked the Trump Administration from requiring higher education institutions to respond to the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (“ACTS”) survey — a new data collection effort mandating that institutions disclose detailed admissions information regarding students’ race and sex to the federal government. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Education, 1:26-cv-11229 (D. Mass.), the court extended the deadline for institutions to respond to the survey from March 18th to March 25th to allow time to consider the case.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 03.22.26
EU Pharma Package: Regulatory Data Protection Compromise Proposal
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.20.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.20.26
