1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |In Texas, Exclusive Means Exclusive

In Texas, Exclusive Means Exclusive

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.20.13

In X Techs., Inc. v. Marvin Test Sys., Inc. (June 11, 2013), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that Marvin (Geotest) breached an "exclusive" teaming agreement with X Tech, a small business, by submitting a separate, ultimately successful competing bid teamed with another company when X Tech had committed in the agreement to bid Geotest as its subcontractor and Geotest had agreed not to "team up with any other company." This decision underscores the points made in our recent blog and bullet point that a teaming agreement will be enforceable when it is carefully drafted.   


Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 03.28.24

UK Government Seeks to Loosen Third Party Litigation Funding Regulation

On 19 March 2024, the Government followed through on a promise from the Ministry of Justice to introduce draft legislation to reverse the effect of  R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28.  The effect of this ruling was discussed in our prior alert and follow on commentary discussing its effect on group competition litigation and initial government reform proposals. Should the bill pass, agreements to provide third party funding to litigation or advocacy services in England will no longer be required to comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”) to be enforceable....