Defacto Debarment: Broad Contracting Prohibitions For Many Expatriate Corporations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.10.09
On July 1st , the FAR Council issued a broad-reaching prohibition on using fiscal year 2006-2009 appropriated funds for contracting with any corporation (or subsidiary of a corporation) that is an inverted domestic for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 7874) or would be considered an inverted domestic under the Code except for the fact that the inversion transactions were completed on or before March 4, 2003. This new rule contains a much broader prohibition on federal contracting than any previous statute or regulation, applying the tax law definition of inverted domestic (and eliminating the 2003 grandfather provision), instead of the ;narrower definition contained in the Department of Homeland Security statute (6 USC 395).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
