Federal Circuit Clarifies Prejudice Review In Bid Protest Cases
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.26.05
Explaining away seemingly contradictory precedent, the Federal Circuit in Bannum, Inc. v. U.S. (Apr. 21, 2005) clarified that, while the merits are reviewed on appeal de novo under the Administrative Procedure Act's "arbitrary and capricious or in violation of law" standard, the determination of whether a violation of law is prejudicial requires fact finding by the Court of Federal Claims and is reviewed for "clear error." Applying the clear error standard to this case, the appellate court found none in the trial court's determination that the violation had not prejudiced the protester.
Insights
Client Alert | 9 min read | 07.09.25
In our first alert in our new weekly series on the EU Pharma Package, we provided some important background and general information about the status of the Pharma Package and how the trilogues work. In this second alert, we will discuss the respective positions of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union with respect to one of the most debated and anxiously anticipated topics on the table, the regulatory data protection (RDP).
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.08.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.08.25
DOJ and HHS Launch FCA Working Group: Heightened Enforcement Risk for Health Care Entities
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.08.25
